The Seamless Garment: What It Is and Isn’t

The Church proposes what is called a “consistent ethic of life”. It must, of course, do so because it is bound by sacred tradition to the proposition that all human beings, without any exception whatsoever, are made in the image and likeness of God and that Jesus Christ died for all human beings, without any exception whatsoever. Therefore each human person—without any exception whatsoever—is sacred and is the only creature that God wills for its own sake.

This simple fact is one that our civilization has tremendous difficulty grasping. All sorts of social and political groups have all sorts of human beings they wish to exempt from this truth—often for purely utilitarian purposes that subjugate the good of human beings to some strategic, political, or economic need. So, for instance, the good of the unborn baby is subjugated to economics and the child is killed in order to spare the parent economic hardship. Criminals deemed to have “forfeited the right to live” are put to death for the express purpose of “teaching a lesson” to others, or because it is thought to be cheaper to kill them—in short, for a utilitarian purpose. Wars in which thousands of combatants and civilians die are launched in order to obtain economic security or to extend some ideological vision. And economic systems are constructed and maintained which reduce whole populations to little more than slavery and poverty while wealth and power are concentrated in the hands of a small oligarchy—because, in the final analysis, wealth and power are deemed more important than human beings.

What Archbishop Gerhard Muller, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, calls the “parody” of the Seamless Garment is well known. This parody states, for instance, that the death penalty is just as intrinsically immoral as abortion, or that the minimum wage is just as grave a question as euthanasia, etc. The odd thing is not that such smokescreen parodies have, indeed, been put forward by some who wish to ignore the Church’s teaching on sexual morality and life issues. We should expect this from progressive dissenters. The odd thing, rather, is that instead of countering such tactics with the Church’s actual teaching, many Catholics who reject progressive dissent have nonetheless accepted the parody as identical with the Seamless Garment itself in order to reject it as a corruption of the Faith. But this is a mistake since, as Muller says, the Seamless Garment itself (not the parody) illustrates “how Catholic moral teaching is a consistent whole—uniting ethical, religious, and political threads in a unified moral vision.”

The Seamless Garment is basically common sense Catholic Social Teaching. It puts the human person at the center of things, instead of things such as possessions and ideologies at the center of the human person. It insists that the Church’s teaching is a unity (like the seamless garment of Christ) in which both the interconnectedness of revelation and a certain hierarchy of truth has to be respected in living out our approach to the love of neighbor.

This approach prevents both 1) the tendency of Progressive dissenters to flatten all moral issues to the same levels of significance (with the resulting absurdity of treating the minimum wage as though it is as grave a matter as the deliberate taking of innocent human life), as well as 2) preventing the tendency of their opponents to isolate the gravest moral issues and use them as excuses for ignoring—sometimes with open contempt—nearly all the rest of the Church’s social teaching (as though opposition to abortion takes away the sins of the world).

This very typical Catholic balance results in a vision of the human person in which indeed, every human life is sacred and the goal is not merely “not killing innocent human life” (a bare minimum threshold of elementary decency) but the flourishing of human life (in keeping with Jesus’ promise of abundant life). As Bernardin puts in his 1984 lecture “A Consistent Ethic of Life: Continuing the Dialogue”: “nuclear war threatens life on a previously unimaginable scale; abortion takes life daily on a horrendous scale; public executions are fast becoming weekly events in the most advanced technological society in history; and euthanasia is now openly discussed and even advocated. Each of these assaults on life has its own meaning and morality; they cannot be collapsed into one problem, but they must be confronted as pieces of a larger pattern.”

Note the judiciousness of that phrasing, so far from the parody. What Bernardin (and Catholic teaching) sees is that the Culture of Death is interlinked with many expressions of contempt for human life, while at the same recognizing that they can’t be “collapsed into one problem”. In short, as Bernardin put it: “A consistent ethic of life does not equate the problem of taking life (e.g., through abortion and in war) with the problem of promoting human dignity (through humane programs of nutrition, health care, and housing). But a consistent ethic identifies both the protection of life and its promotion as moral questions. It argues for a continuum of life which must be sustained in the face of diverse and distinct threats.”

Seamless Garment teaching, as is typical for Catholic teaching, insists on the interrelatedness of various moral questions (i.e., the notion that Catholic teaching is a “whole weave” and not a single thread). That’s because Catholic teaching is designed to address the entirety of the human condition. Significantly, the word “heresy” comes from the Greek word referring to the plucking of a single thread from a whole garment. The mark of heresy is that it seizes on some few truths in Catholic teaching and exaggerates their importance while using them to make war on the rest of the Tradition. It matters little which truth or truths are seized on, just so long as the rest of the Tradition is attacked by it. Indeed, even the greatest truth: that God the Father is God can be (and was) used by Arius to attack the truth that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are God.

Similarly, the great truth of the inter-relatedness of Church’s teaching sometimes gets flattened (so that in some quarters, if you oppose the death penalty you need not care about the killing of unborn children), while in other quarters opposition to the death penalty or concern about the environment or poverty is taken as a sign that one is a “liberal” who must therefore approve of abortion, contraception, gay “marriage”, etc. Both of these parodies lose sight of exactly what the Seamless Garment actually asserts: that the dignity of the human person compels us to accept all of what the Church teaches in its social doctrine, not just pluck out the threads we like.

The comparison and contrast of the Church’s teaching on abortion and capital punishment is useful here. Seamless Garment teaching of course recognizes the distinction between taking innocent human life (always gravely and intrinsically evil) and the taking of life in the death penalty (sometimes justified). But the Church also notes that merely because something can be done does not mean it must be. So while the Church does not say the death penalty is intrinsically immoral, it still insists in applying it as sparingly as possible and essentially says that the burden is on the state to show it is necessary to take human life, not on the human person to show that he deserves to live. The Church, in short, has a "preferential option for life" and always puts the burden of proof--a very heavy burden--on those who seek to kill or harm.

This common sense balance that emphasizes both the inter-relatedness of human life and human dignity and the proper hierarchy of various issues is at the core of Seamless Garment thinking because it is at the core of Catholic Social Teaching. It is long past time for Catholics of all stripes to embrace the whole of Catholic teaching and not merely the parts that suit us.

Comments

Why do I get the impression that the Western civilized nations’ response, especially the U.S., to Christians and other minorities being attacked in Iraq is not much different than the U.S. Catholic Church’s response to the attack on the unborn by abortion - muted at best, compared to what we could do?

Posted by stilbelieve on Monday, Aug 11, 2014 8:40 AM (EDT):

What other “pro-life” issues in the “seamless garment” require a U.S. constitutional amendment to correct?

Posted by 'catholics' are against abortion, BUT on Saturday, Aug 9, 2014 3:42 PM (EDT):

Mark: “It is not necessarily true that merely voting for somebody who supports a grave intrinsic evil is mortal sin. It’s an attempt to illustrate the point..I myself can’t think of any proportionate reason to vote for a proabort candidate at a national level, but I try to be charitable to those who feel they have such reasons and assume that they are acting in good conscience…” ——
Well, Mark, if nothing else, you sure did illustrate ‘stillbelieve’s point about closet pro-abortionists (or the indifferent) always saying “I’m against it, BUT…”:
Mark Shea: “I myself can’t think of any proportionate reason to vote for a proabort candidate at a national level, BUT…”
I’ve been a lifelong Democrat and even I can’t buy into your double-talk. Lets see here: National leaders advance abortion, ‘catholics’ continue voting for these same politicians “in good conscience” and people like you make sure you treat these same ‘catholics’ with “Charity”. Looks like this little love fest of yours works out for everyone BUT the 57,000,000 dead babies.
Mark Shea: “The nuanced approach…” The Lord: “BUT because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold, nor hot, I will begin to vomit thee out of my mouth.”

Posted by Mark P Shea on Friday, Aug 8, 2014 1:46 AM (EDT):

Of course Seamless Garment teaching, like almost all Church teaching, has a very large component of prudential judgment to it. That’s not “convenient”. It’s a simple fact. How the Church’s teaching is to be applied depends on myriad factors and actors.

I don’t see how launching another war is going to accomplish much beside get a lot of the people you claim to care about killed. So my money is on evacuation and asylum, since you asked. But it is clear that you aren’t really asking out of any interest in the refugees, but because you’ve managed to convince yourself of the bizarre proposition that the Seamless Garment is somehow to blame for Mr. Bush’s war and it’s consequences (consequences predicted by that flaming liberal Pope Benedict ten years ago).

I’m done here. Have the last crazy word.

Posted by stilbelieve on Friday, Aug 8, 2014 1:29 AM (EDT):

@Mark: “The Church…does not give us cookbooks and plumbing classes. We are to handle those matters ourselves using our prudential judgment.”

Oh, so “prudential judgments” are part of the “seamless garment.” Well, isn’t that convenient for you to follow the “seamless garment,” enabling you to “condemn” those of us and the Congress and the Administration and the numerous nations that all agreed the war against Iraq was called for. But you condemn all of us for violating YOUR “seamless garment.” How nice must it be for you to always paint yourself for being “right’ according to the “seamless garment” and all the rest of us wrong.

Yes, the “seamless garment” is a wonderful tool Bernardin and the U.S. bishops gave the Church to rely on to justify endorsing with your name and support the pro-abortion, pro-same sex “marriage,” anti 1st Amendment Right to Freedom of Religion, anti-Catholic Church Democratic Party, that over half of church-going Catholics, including clergy who are registered to vote, stand behind in “loving God with all their heart, soul and mind.”

Come on, Mark, should our nation send war planes over to Kurdistan to kill those Nazi Islamist who are going to kill those 25,000 children and parents on top of that mountain? What does your “prudential judgment” direct you to demand of our nation?

Posted by stilbelieve on Friday, Aug 8, 2014 12:17 AM (EDT):

@Mark: ” Personally speaking, I think we Americans owe asylum to every one of those Iraqi refugees since our reckless war created this situation.”

This war was won for those people until your “Seamless Garment” Catholics elected this Muslim loving Affirmative Action President. The war was started with the support of the Congress, with Democrats clamoring to change their “no” votes to “aye” when the world nations overwhelmingly agreed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and would allow the Islamist terrorist to use them against us is future attacks. Bush realized what the stakes were dealing with these Nazi Islamist, and had them under control while he was in office. But the “seamless garment” Catholics elected twice this bowing to Arab leaders, president, who is absolutely loving seeing Christians being slaughter.

As for your comment: “The Church says “feed the hungry and give drink to the thirsty,” you again show your ignorance of what Jesus was saying in Mathew. Read the footnotes in our bible. Oh, excuse me for being up the bible.

Posted by stilbelieve on Thursday, Aug 7, 2014 11:46 PM (EDT):

Mark, “Now, Bishop Habash said during an Aug. 5 interview with the Register, ‘I don’t trust anyone in the American administration. I don’t have any expectations that they will help.’”

The Church says “feed the hungry and give drink to the thirsty”. It does not give us cookbooks and plumbing classes. We are to handle those matters ourselves using our prudential judgment. So there is no specific church teaching I am aware of pertaining to this situation beyond “pray and do the corporal and spiritual works of mercy”. Personally speaking, I think we Americans owe asylum to every one of those Iraqi refugees since our reckless war created this situation. So I think we should organize an international evacuation and get them to safety. And we should have been the very first to open our doors to them. To our shame, France welcomed them first. But it’s not too late to do the right thing and atone for our betrayal of them.

Posted by stilbelieve on Thursday, Aug 7, 2014 9:08 PM (EDT):

Mark, using the “consistent ethic of life” teaching of the Church, how do we, a Christian nation, decide to do with the situation of tens of thousands of Christians and “wrongly” affiliated Muslims who fled to Kurdistan from Iraq for protection after being threatened with death if they don’t convert to Islam; and now have fled to a mountain top after Islamic Nazis have overrun Kurdistan and have those people trapped onto of a mountain with no food or supplies of any kind? What is the Church teaching for us to do for those trapped people?

Posted by Casting Crowns on Thursday, Aug 7, 2014 4:19 PM (EDT):

I suspect the argument is generally made that if a candidate supports abortion rights, it’s demonstratively clear said candidate is typically found supporting other liberal stalwart issues in direct opposition to biblical and church teaching such as homosexual marriage. Perhaps not in every case, but the die has been cast. Someone who supports abortion is indicative and reflective of how they “think” (and consider) life and of their disrespect of God Himself. Such contempt has no fear of God. This view cannot help but color their mindset of how they view the world. It’s about “self” versus selflessness. You’ve heard Obama. An unplanned pregnancy for his daughters is not a child but “a mistake” she should not be punished for. His view is that sin should bear no consequence. Surely God forgives sin, however there are always consequences to disobedience.
.
Someone having a worldview versus those who take a “biblical” worldview will rarely find common ground or similar perspective on deeply rooted moral issues.

Posted by Mark P Shea on Thursday, Aug 7, 2014 3:32 PM (EDT):

No. It’s an attempt to illustrate the point that Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (that would be Pope Benedict XVI) made when he said: “[N.B. A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.]”

I myself can’t think of any proportionate reason to vote for a proabort candidate at a national level, but I try to be charitable to those who feel they have such reasons and assume that they are acting in good conscience. I also typically argue with them that their proportionate reasons aren’t really proportionate.

Thanks for playing Accuser of the Brethren, but the job is already filled.

Posted by Your Average Nobody on Thursday, Aug 7, 2014 2:47 PM (EDT):

Mark Shea: “It is true that we are responsible for how our voting choices affect more than the question of abortion. It is not necessarily true that merely voting for somebody who supports a grave intrinsic evil is mortal sin…So if I vote for a fanatical pro-abortion candidate for water commissioner, because he is competent for the job of water commissioner, I am “supporting a proabortion candidate” but I am not voting to support abortion.” ...they may legitimately do so in good conscience if they believe they have a proportional reason for doing so.”

——-
Mark, so that wasn’t you who made the “argument” above? Nice attempt at sidestepping the issue but the truth is revealed in your writing. Specifically, your personal interpretation of Cardinal Ratzinger’s letter that you injected right into the middle of a debate about the true meaning and application of “Seamless Garment” doctrine (theory?):

— Mark Shea: “I am ‘supporting a pro-abortion candidate’ but I am not voting to support abortion…if [they] I believe I have a proportional reason for doing so” —

This is a half-baked “Jedi mind trick” that you’re selling catholics that enables them to vote for pro-death politicians while still pretending they’re serving the Author of life. And it enables them to pretend that they’re not an accessory to sin for propagating this type of self-deceit/complicity in thousands of daily abortions in the USA.

Posted by Mark P Shea on Wednesday, Aug 6, 2014 2:20 PM (EDT):

“Mark Shea… simply couldn’t present a valid justification for voting for a pro-abortion politician or come even remotely close to presenting a proportionate equivalent (e.g. war casualties, refugees, civil rights, healthcare, poor people, etc.) to the shed blood of 50,000,000+ unborn in the womb.”

That could have something to do with the fact that Mark Shea never attempted to make such an argument and that the Seamless Garment is not trying to make that argument either.

Lots of passionate comments and arguments…it made for stimulating reading…thank you to all that contributed. I had never heard of the “seamless garment’ before coming across this article by Mark. I would say ‘ANNE’ and her superb research, ‘still believe’ et al clearly won the debates that arose in the comments and exposed the grave deficiencies of the “seamless garment’ concept and how it’s misuse advances the culture of death. The positions presented by Mark Shea, Stuart Kenny et al didn’t prove to have the substantive foundations to withstand rigorous critical analysis and debate. IMHO, Mark Shea, Stuart Kenny et all simply couldn’t present a valid justification for voting for a pro-abortion politician or come even remotely close to presenting a proportionate equivalent (e.g. war casualties, refugees, civil rights, healthcare, poor people, etc.) to the shed blood of 50,000,000+ unborn in the womb. The arguments in favor of the Democratic Party or the validity of the “Seamless Garment” were quickly exposed as completely asinine. Mark Shea, you put some real effort into this blog article and I appreciate you bringing this topic to my attention in the first place but it’s clear you need to rethink your position and tighten up your article with the key facts (e.g. Bernardin’s presentation in 1983 etc. etc.) brought to your attention by the aforementioned and help others you may have inadvertently misled.

Posted by Casting Crowns on Wednesday, Aug 6, 2014 12:17 AM (EDT):

@stilbelieve: Agreed. And what has been reaped is far, far more than what was sowed. While no one would ever expect any alliance of doctrine, such an attitude by Bernardin held at bay people like Falwell and prominent Evangelicals who were/are Pro Life from ever coming together in areas of common purpose like abortion. Satan loves these divisions which play right into the hands of the left. Instead of strength in numbers, unwittingly Bernardin produced division. It’s the same myopia that for decades enabled Massachusetts Catholics to keep electing and re-electing anyone named Kennedy.

Posted by stilbelieve on Tuesday, Aug 5, 2014 11:55 PM (EDT):

@Casting Crowns: ” WHOM is being honored,—the Lord, or the motivations of men?”

Bernardin’s biography answers that when it acknowledges on pages 242,243 that his “seamless garment” will “keep the pro-life movement falling completely under the control of the right wing conservatives who were becoming its dominant sponsors.” Why will it keep the pro-life movement from doing that? Because Bernardin sowed a whole lot of “left wing” Democrat issues into it enabling Catholic Democrats to remain in the Democratic Party contrary to what those Catholics profess to believe and pray for.

Posted by Casting Crowns on Monday, Aug 4, 2014 12:40 PM (EDT):

@stilbelieve: You are correct there is no gospel directive that government provide any charitable work. In fact, charitable thinking in the pagan (Gentile) culture was pretty much scarce outside the Judeo environment until the church and Christianity began to develop over several generations. Once Christianity became the dominant religion in western civilization, governments began to realize the state had a part in promoting gospel ethics in caring for those unable to care for themselves.
.
Even though Mark made a prior comment to you that you seem to have fused a Protestant “bootstrap” attitude as a wedge against Catholic social teaching, his is an unfair criticism to charge Protestantism and the Protestant work-ethic as devoid of Christianity charity merely to present Catholic social teaching as “holier than thou” in terms of charitable comparison. Just this morning we see missionary Kent Brantly now at Emory who contacted the Ebola virus. He belongs to Samaritan’s Purse a nondenominational evangelical Christian organization providing spiritual and physical aid to hurting people around the world.
.
We are not in the position (nor are we) to judge the ultimate salvation of any man or woman, however the passage you refer to Matthew 25 goes to crux of the issue. One doesn’t need to Catholic or Protestant to perform good works. Even non-believers do good works, give money and perform charity. Plenty of individuals perform “good works” whether in or out of government—but each have their own motivation. And many identify themselves as Catholic, Protestant, Democrat and Republican.
.
I would only ask the question in the context of “We did X, Y and Z” in your name” —what was the real motivation? Political? Self reward? Seeking the recognition and applause of men? Outwardly, men might say we are doing this, that and the next for the Lord. Internally, though, Jesus is pointing to “Did you really know me in doing these things? Where was your heart? Was the motivation internal or actually just external?” If one’s motivation is not Christ-centered, the danger is (as pointed out) “Depart from me for I never knew you.”
.
In bringing this conversation back to abortion, Catholic Democrat politicians who vote for affirming such laws, Court Judges and Catholic voters who repeatedly vote for such people, —how is God served by the passing and enablement of any law, Supreme Court Judge and government policy? WHOM is being honored,—the Lord, or the motivations of men?

Posted by stilbelieve on Monday, Aug 4, 2014 3:31 AM (EDT):

@Casting Crowns: “We have no laws requiring the care for wounded soldiers, the battle-scarred, orphans, the blind, the aged, infirm and widows.”

I think in this example of a nation coming to the needs of people, it is doing so because of the obligation to those who fought for the country, and those who suffered injury to their physical bodies as well as the loss suffered by female spouses and children.

I’m not opposed to helping people in need, but I am opposed to saying that is a directive of Jesus to do so through government. That approach has produced Catholic Democrats who believe that is more important than any other teaching of the Church; the fruits of which has made Catholic Democrats the largest single group in the Democratic Party almost 42 years after Roe v. Wade, and their support gives that party the electoral power to keep abortion legal resulting in 57,000,000 murder American babies and still counting; and now “legalized marriage” between same-sex people in 17 states; and the direct attack against our First Amendment Constitutional Rights of Freedom of Religion, as well as a direct attack against the Catholic Church, costing the Church millions of dollars in legal fees. The most troubling thing about that is the tens of millions of Catholics who are risking their eternal salvation just to continue feeling “morally superior” to others, thinking they are doing “God’s work,” while the “other party” isn’t because of selfishness.” The clergy, most of all who condone that, are going to have a lot of explaining to Jesus when he returns, but unfortunately for them, Jesus won’t be in a frame of mind to hear their pleas as he directs them to stand on his left side (ironically the same side politically in this life) and says, “Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.” Now, there will be people who say, “But Mathew said in chapter 25; verse 35 – “For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me….” Yes he did, but read the footnote for Mt 25, 31-46 and you will discover he was NOT talking about “all people,” he was talking about disciples who went out to do mission work; in other words – priests. Our rewards will be on how we assist his disciples, priest today, in their mission to bringing God into our lives, and it will not be by incorrect teachings. Several other footnotes on who “little ones are” and who his “brothers and mother are” support the understanding that they are referring to his disciples who obey God. Our duty is to accommodate the needs of his disciples. The more we do that, the stronger his disciples become; and the more effective they become in saving souls.

Posted by Casting Crowns on Friday, Aug 1, 2014 12:55 AM (EDT):

@stilbelieve: Almost half the signers of the Declaration of Independence, as well as most every Founding Father graduated from orthodox Christian teaching seminaries. In fact, many were Pastors, sons of Pastors or church elders. Check those who signed the US Constitution as well. Our nation is the only nation ever founded upon biblical principles thus our documents are intertwined with references to God, the Bible and Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. As much as liberal Democrats, Obama, Holder, NPR and the ACLU can’t stand this fact, they cannot erase history except to teach grammar school kids the founders were all men, white, slave owners and bigoted racists.
.
Contrast these biblically-based men (though all men are sinful and flawed) with the founders of other nations and see the corruption of governments, brutality, and the evil by which even the poorest of the poor live in squalor and are uncared for. Even in our own hemisphere, Catholic Mexico has over 150 years of corrupt and evil leaders. I won’t even bother to go into a litany of corruption by the Peron’s in the home nation of Pope Francis’ Catholic Argentina.
.
That said, it is inconceivable our Christian embedded ethos would ever allow those unable to care for themselves to simply “wish them well” and be on our merry way. I will agree there is no legal obligation on the part of the government do so AND yet there is no finite limit to which Democrats are willing to tax people to death (many only for political gain), but there is systemic within the heart and soul of “Christian” government officials to provide for those unable to care for themselves.
.
Hear this passage from Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address: “With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation’s wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.”
.
We have no laws requiring the care for wounded soldiers, the battle-scarred, orphans, the blind, the aged, infirm and widows. Still, you would not deny our Christianity demands our government provide proper care for our people. The sin which creates angst, however, is when care and assistance go to the fraudulent because these recipients deny us the capacity to do *more* for those truly worthy. With Democrats, too frequently is they who seek the glory. Meanwhile, our own Christianity tells us whatever we do in His name—that glory is reserved for God alone.

Posted by stilbelieve on Thursday, Jul 31, 2014 7:30 PM (EDT):

@Casting Crowns: “Even the Preamble of the United States Constitution supports the promotion of the ‘general welfare’ of the people. In other terms, the ‘common good.’”

That’s not my understanding of that term, but I had to look it up to be sure. Here’s what a Google search resulted in finding from “The Law and Liberty Foundation:”

“James Madison stated that the ‘general welfare’ clause was not intended to give Congress an open hand ‘to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare.’ If by the “general welfare,” the Founding Fathers had meant any and all social, economic, or educational programs Congress wanted to create, there would have been no reason to list specific powers of Congress such as establishing courts and maintaining the armed forces. Those powers would simply have been included in one all-encompassing phrase, to promote the general welfare.

“John Quincy Adams, sixth President of the United States, once observed: ‘
‘Our Constitution professedly rests upon the good sense and attachment of the people. This basis, weak as it may appear, has not yet been found to fail.’”

“It is NOT the government’s business (constitutionally) to ‘help’ individuals in financial difficulty. Once they undertake to provide those kinds of services, they must do so with limited resources, meaning that some discriminating guidelines must be imposed. (so many who need that kind of help- so little resources to provide it.)

“The Founding Fathers said in the preamble that one reason for establishing the Constitution was to ‘promote the general welfare.’ What they meant was that the Constitution and powers granted to the federal government were not to favor special interest groups or particular classes of people. There were to be no privileged individuals or groups in society. Neither minorities nor the majority was to be favored. Rather, the Constitution would promote the ‘general welfare’ by ensuring a free society where free, self-responsible individuals - rich and poor, bankers and shopkeepers, employers and employees, farmers and blacksmiths - would enjoy ‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,’ rights expressed in the Declaration of Independence.”

Posted by stilbelieve on Thursday, Jul 31, 2014 7:12 PM (EDT):

@Mark: “Nobody is saying we should get government to do what he taught his disciples to do themselves”

Before writing that you wrote in a previous comment to me: “The notion that the state social safety net is somehow stopping you from being that charitable giver who will solve the world’s ill all alone is a charming excuse for doing nothing…” (Excuse me for interrupting, Mark, but what you just discribed is the Catholic Democrat’s attitude and reasoning, not mine. The average donation in the Sunday collection at the church I attend at times, which is in the district of Congresswoman Linda Sanchez (D) won’t even buy a McDonald’s quarter pounder – not a meal, a single quarter pounder) but in reality, if you care about the poor you won’t care whether you or the state get the credit since the point is helping the poor, not you.” (I care; Mark, but more importantly - Jesus cares, that’s why he repeated to the disciples so often, who should care for the poor. He never mentioned the state – ever. So, why do Catholics think they are so morally superior because they are Democrats?

Then, Mark, you added: “Here is Pius XI in Casti Connbuii:” Thank you for providing a disciple of Jesus 19 centuries later.

“If, however, for this purpose, private resources do not suffice, it is the duty of the public authority to supply for the insufficient forces of individual effort, particularly in a matter which is of such importance to the common weal, touching as it does the maintenance of the family and married people.”

Was this directive about what the state should do in such cases for married families a long traditional teaching or something relatively new? And how is it that a “disciple of Jesus” would say that when Jesus never did?

Let me be clear, my interest in finding out the facts and the truth for my Church’s teachings is to try to understand how so many Catholics, including clergy, can continue to endorse with their name and support the pro-abortion Democratic Party, the party that is solely responsible for keeping abortion legal going on 42 years with no end in sight; contradicting what those Catholics profess to believe and pray for – that God is the creator of life, and they pray for His “will be done on earth.” For merely “joining” the Nazi Party or the KKK; Church teaching on the Fifth Commandment is that it’s not just a sin, it “is particularly a sin,” with NO exonerating conditions allowed. How can endorsing and supporting the pro-abortion Democratic Party be any less of a sin against the Fifth Commandment when the mere numbers of Catholics who do that give the Democratic Party the electoral power to keep the murder of unborn babies legal?

Posted by Casting Crowns on Tuesday, Jul 29, 2014 7:34 PM (EDT):

@Stuart Kenny: [“Democrats have the most successful record of reducing abortion of either party.”]
.
That’s hilarious. A Catholic using talking points from the media playbook of Eleanor Smeal, Patricia Ireland and NPR.

Posted by stilbelieve on Tuesday, Jul 29, 2014 7:26 PM (EDT):

“Nobody is saying we should get government to do what he taught his disciples to do themselves. You, however, are fudging what you said before, which was ‘I ask you where in the gospel does Jesus teach his disciples to get government to take care of the poor?’ I answered you with the authoritative teaching of the Church, which clearly states that the state has an obligation to supply what private initiative cannot.

Where does the “authoritative teaching of the Church” come up with the idea “that the state has an obligation to supply what private initiative cannot?” Why is that not the obligation of the Church to do based on the teachings of Jesus?

In other words, Catholics are Democrats because they feel a moral obligation to be so because Democrats are “for the little guy (the poor) and Republicans are for the rich,” at least that is what the Democratic propaganda teaches. Obama had a meeting with the Catholic publicans and news editors in his first year of office where he said how much he respects Cardinal Bernardin “even to today because of his teachings on social justice.” Where did these Church teachings come from about government doing these things “for the poor” if they didn’t come from Jesus?

As for Obama’s “admiration” for Cardinal Bernardin - the Cardinal’s “seamless garment” was a godsend for that community organizer and the Democratic Party; it was Obama’s “surf board,” so to speak, to ride that wave all the way up to the top. Interesting that his admiration for Bernardin didn’t include the intrinsic evil issues - but that’s the “seamless garment” for you.

Posted by Casting Crowns on Tuesday, Jul 29, 2014 7:24 PM (EDT):

When unwise government spending along with an overbearing tax burden becomes so great, such policies only thwart and limit the ability of God’s people individually (or the church as a whole) to advance the gospel which include the corporal works of mercy.

Posted by Stuart Kenny on Tuesday, Jul 29, 2014 7:24 PM (EDT):

The Democrats are not a pro-abortion party. That is calumny. The Democrats have the most successful record of reducing abortion of either party. If you vote for a party which has no record of reducing abortion, then that is a pro-death vote. I choose to vote for a party whose policies will actually result in fewer unborn children dying. That these policies work is shown in the very low abortion rate in Sweden (which the Pope also applauds for its welcome of immigrants).

Mark, since you are not a libertarian and believe that the State has the wisdom and jurisdiction—how would you prosecute the mother for a procured abortion? What if the woman freely admits she had the abortion because she just didn’t want a kid right now? What would you charge her with and what would be the penalty? (Hint: If you don’t treat each abortion as premeditated murder, then you are pro-choice. You don’t really believe an embryo is a full person.)

Posted by Mark P Shea on Tuesday, Jul 29, 2014 6:49 PM (EDT):

Nobody is saying we should get government to do what he taught his disciples to do themselves. You, however, are fudging what you said before, which was “I ask you where in the gospel does Jesus teach his disciples to get government to take care of the poor?” I answered you with the authoritative teaching of the Church, which clearly states that the state has an obligation to supply what private initiative cannot. Now, seeing that, you change the question to make it sound like the argument is about the state replacing private initiative. That’s dishonest, and I think you know that.

Bottom line: it is a false dichotomy to force an either/or choice between private charity and state social safety nets. And the result of your dishonest dichotomy is poor people forced into poverty and the decision to abort because you are too cheap too pay taxes that would help them. Another example of anti-abortion-but-not-prolife thinking. Try listening to the Church.

Posted by stilbelieve on Tuesday, Jul 29, 2014 6:24 PM (EDT):

@Mark: “...while Stillbelieve is arguing that the state should not intervene even in cases of poverty and starvation.”

I don’t think I’m “arguing” that. I’m arguing that it is not a teaching of Jesus’ to go get government to do what he taught his disciples to do themselves. Besides the fact that that misguided teaching keeps Catholics endorsing and supporting the pro-abortion Democratic Party; there is great evidence that turning to government to do that work is very destructive as well as wasteful. The effects of Congressional Democrats’ and President Johnson’s “War on Poverty” is demonstrated in the black community. Fifty years ago, 35% black households were single-parent; today they are 75%. Children growing up without a father is devastating on them, especially males. Many black males join gangs as a result and become criminals. $17,000,000,000,000 dollars has been spent of tax-payer money to reduce poverty which was at 14.9% 50 years ago when the legislation was signed into law. Today it is at 15.1%. Back then the black abortion rate was probably less then 1% (because it was illegal), today it’s 75%. Our national debt is $17 Trillion; having increased 70% in just the last 5+ years under this Democratic Administration (which was elected twice by the majority of Catholic voters, which includes the clergy). That debt is unsustainable and will bankrupt our country in the next generation. How is that working for the “common good?”

The U.S. bishops want money to continue to be spent on such programs. Why do they want that? Because they think it’s the “Christian” thing to do. Where’s the fruit of that “Christian” work?

I don’t care if politicians want to use taxpayers’ money on such programs. Just don’t tell Christians/Catholics that that is God’s will for us to do, because it influences peoples vote, and besides, Jesus never taught that. The proof that that is the wrong thing to do, besides the War on Poverty facts stated above, is playing out before our eyes in our time with the government now telling the Church what it has to do to avoid paying a “tax penalty,” or what they are going to have to do to continue to get government funding to administer their government contracted charitable programs. For secular government programs of charity to be fruitful requires spiritual Christian minds to be administering them and working in them. And for that to be occurring requires an effective clergy force of tens of thousands of priest and ministers of the caliber of father Fulton Sheen inspiring those minds. We don’t have that today and haven’t for decades because of another offshoot of the “seamless” garment - collegiality…let’s all just get along and not cause any waves - compromise.

Posted by Stuart Kenny on Tuesday, Jul 29, 2014 3:27 PM (EDT):

I guess my “libertarian madness” is spreading:

In an interview published in part in the Argentine weekly “Viva” July 27, the pope listed his Top 10 tips for bringing greater joy to one’s life:

1. “Live and let live.” Everyone should be guided by this principle, he said, which has a similar expression in Rome with the saying, “Move forward and let others do the same.”

2. “Be giving of yourself to others.” People need to be open and generous toward others, he said, because “if you withdraw into yourself, you run the risk of becoming egocentric. And stagnant water becomes putrid.”

***

8. Stop being negative. “Needing to talk badly about others indicates low self-esteem. That means, ‘I feel so low that instead of picking myself up I have to cut others down,’” the pope said. “Letting go of negative things quickly is healthy.”

9. Don’t proselytize; respect others’ beliefs. “We can inspire others through witness so that one grows together in communicating. But the worst thing of all is religious proselytism, which paralyzes: ‘I am talking with you in order to persuade you,’ No. Each person dialogues, starting with his and her own identity. The church grows by attraction, not proselytizing,” the pope said.

10. Work for peace. “We are living in a time of many wars,” he said, and “the call for peace must be shouted. Peace sometimes gives the impression of being quiet, but it is never quiet, peace is always proactive” and dynamic.

Pope Francis also talked about the importance of helping immigrants, praising Sweden’s generosity in opening its doors to so many people, while noting anti-immigration policies show the rest of Europe “is afraid.”

Posted by Casting Crowns on Tuesday, Jul 29, 2014 2:02 PM (EDT):

@Stuart Kenny: You’re so far to left on abortion to have thus been rendered irrelevant. Nevertheless, I’ll be happy to respond once you, the DNC and socialists who advocate a scorched earth position on taxation can finally define exactly what “paying one’s ‘fair share’ actually is.

Posted by Mark P Shea on Tuesday, Jul 29, 2014 1:59 PM (EDT):

The irony is that Stillbelieve and Stuart Kenney are *both* espousing a radical Libertarianism that rejects any role for the state in the affairs of the individual. It’s just that Stuart is even *more* libertarian and believes that the state should not intervene, even in cases of murder, while Stillbelieve is arguing that the state should not intervene even in cases of poverty and starvation. Both of you are desperately wrong. God save the Church from your madness.

Posted by Mark P Shea on Tuesday, Jul 29, 2014 1:54 PM (EDT):

Stillbelieve: ““Where’s the ‘proof’ to that reasoning in reality?” Irrelevant. I’m simply pointing out that ****Ratzinger**** is saying it is possible for there to be a circumstance in which somebody votes for a pro-abort, but not to support abortion and giving a hypothetical about how that might play out. I am under no obligation to show that it has happened . Your quarrel is with Ratzinger, not me.

““Furthermore, where does Jesus teach in the gospels that his disciples and the sheep go get government politicians to care for those who are poor, rather than the disciples themselves?”

Straw man. Nobody’s talking about state social safety nets replacing Christian charity. But you are talkng about abolishing state social safety nets, which (as Pius XI makes clear) is an anti-Catholic position. You should stop arguing against the Church.

“Mark, I ask you where in the gospel does Jesus teach his disciples to get government to take care of the poor?”

And I reply that we are not sola scriptura prooftexting Protestants but Catholics and provide you with the clear teaching of Pius XI. “Show me chapter and verse” is one of those dumb trick Fundamentalists use to “prove” that Purgatory or the Trinity don’t exist since “Jesus never mentioned them”. You are doing exactly the same thing. Learn to think with the Church. Pius answered your question. Listen to him.

Posted by Stuart Kenny on Tuesday, Jul 29, 2014 1:24 PM (EDT):

When the (rightist) wing of the USCCB takes a “spare no expense or limit” attitude towards (the unborn), they have placed their weight and dependency upon man and government instead of first placing their dependence upon God to work in the hearts and minds of those who follow Him to accomplish His purposes.

See? Change a couple of words and we agree! :)

I would really like an answer to this question: Why is the government too evil to raise taxes and redistribute money to the poor but all of a sudden wise and merciful when dealing with the unborn? If we can’t trust our taxes to the government, how can we trust our unborn to the government?

Posted by Casting Crowns on Tuesday, Jul 29, 2014 11:52 AM (EDT):

Having a proper attitude when caring for the needy is that God receives the glory in this,—not the government, not the Bishops or even fundraising drives by those who manage Catholic Charities.

Posted by Casting Crowns on Tuesday, Jul 29, 2014 11:38 AM (EDT):

@Mark: I think you’re inferring a hyper position to stilbelieve. I see no advocacy presented by stilbelieve of refusing any obligation of a social safety net by government or for taxpayers to support such activities.
.
When the leftist wing of the USCCB takes a “spare no expense or limit” attitude toward socialism and ever higher taxes, (with realizing it), they have placed their weight and dependency upon man and government instead of first placing their dependence upon God to work in the hearts and minds of those who follow Him to accomplish His purposes.

Posted by mrscracker on Tuesday, Jul 29, 2014 11:20 AM (EDT):

I’m puzzled why we should not trust the govt.to pass laws to protect human life, but the same govt. should be trusted to pass laws to enact taxes to protect human life.

Posted by stilbelieve on Tuesday, Jul 29, 2014 9:27 AM (EDT):

@Mark July 22, 1:55 PM (EDT) you said: “So, for instance, somebody who votes for a nominally pro-abort pol whose *real* interest seems to the voter to be creating economic conditions in which there is far less pressure on poor women to abort may be, by their lights, what they can to reduce rather than increase abortion.”

Here was my question to you: “Where’s the ‘proof’ to that reasoning in reality? What respected studies have been conducted by pro-life or pro-abortion organizations to support that conclusion? And what about the ‘proportionality’ of Catholic votes going to the stated pro-abortion Democratic Party giving it the electoral power to keep abortion legal, regardless of those Catholics’ reasoning for doing so? Without Catholic votes, the pro-abortion party would not have the power to keep abortion legal, thereby eliminating legal abortions which would save hundreds of thousands of babies, maybe a million, every year. Because of Catholic votes, abortion remains legal, now going on 42 years with 57,000,000 murdered babies in its wake. Don’t you think Catholic boycotting of the pro-abortion, and now pro-homosexual marriage, anti-Constitutional Right of Freedom of Religion, and the direct attack on the Church - Democratic Party, would be a more effective way for Catholics to respond to these intrinsic evils in our country while acting in a more affirming way on their professed beliefs and prayers?”

“Furthermore, where does Jesus teach in the gospels that his disciples and the sheep go get government politicians to care for those who are poor, rather than the disciples themselves?”

Then on 7/23 1:14 AM (EDT) I wrote to you: “Mark, are you on vacation? I’ve asked you important questions about the ‘seamless garment,’ which you are knowledgeable about and a cheerleader for, that us original pro-lifers need answers to in order to better understand it. You haven’t answered them. Obviously, based on their voting records and endorsement with their names, those Catholic Democrats feel they are obeying Catholic teaching. How can that be?

“Are they? Or are they sinning?”

You reply, a week later, with distracting commentary about my reading the bible for answers, calling it “obsessive Protestant prooftexting” and then make a brief statement about “the Church teaches the state has the responsibility to provide for the common good.” Then you continue in your notable charitable fashion of belittling and insulting your target with “...if you care about the poor you won’t care whether you or the state get the credit since the point is helping the poor, not you.”

Then you provide a quote from Pius XI in Casti Connbuii (which is a writing about concerns of marriage and married couples) that is 2 paragraphs long, one of which contains just 2 sentences, but is 15 lines long containing 233 words, which says in essences that the state is responsible for taking care of those married couples who are on hard times, not making enough money even with both of them having to work.

Mark, I ask you where in the gospel does Jesus teach his disciples to get government to take care of the poor? Give me chapter and verse, I don’t see it. Forgive me for “prooftexting” but I’m a victim of the U.S. bishops’ insistent concern for turning to the government as the solution to help the poor, contrary to the teachings of Jesus. And I am not the only victim of the U.S. bishops’ concern for the poor that extended to getting government to force mortgage lenders to issue sub-prime loans to poor and low income people, with the threat of government lawsuits, so they could buy homes they couldn’t afford - causing the financial and housing market crises of 7 years ago that we are still dealing with in our economy today, which cost millions of families like mine to lose what was going to be our retirement income - equity in our homes. Trillions of future retirement money - gone in one day. Where is the Catholic “blessed common good” to the tens of millions of us who worked all our lives to provide a home and Catholic schooling for our kids, only to have our life savings and equity disappear because of the bishops’ meddling in our country’s economics, rather than following the teaching of Jesus? Jesus knew what he was talking about when it came to economics and caring for the poor; he even highlighted the offerings of that poor widow to illustrate that caring for the Church and the poor must include everyone in a volunteering way, not by the confiscatory ways of the state. The U.S. Catholic bishops labored on behalf of the state and those politicians who wanted to cozy up to the Church to use them for their own political gain in the false premise they were helping the poor. Now, those politicians don’t need them any more, and as the old saying goes - the chickens are coming home to roost.

Now, I’ll ask you one more time: Where does Jesus teach his disciples to go get government to take care of the poor?

Posted by Mark P Shea on Tuesday, Jul 29, 2014 2:26 AM (EDT):

And you’ll notice that in all your huffing and puffing, you managed to completely ignore the fact that the Church makes very clear you are completely wrong about the state having a role in creating a social safety net and not leaving it all to private initiative. You call that “socialism” and “redistribuion of wealth”. I call it common sense and Catholic teaching.

Posted by Mark P Shea on Tuesday, Jul 29, 2014 2:22 AM (EDT):

Stillbelieve: Stuart Kenney (who appears to be a Libertarian on acid in his notions of never ever ever interfering in human affairs with any law ever, even against murder) did not demand I answer any questions. You did. So I answered you. And now you complain that I answered you. There’s no pleasing some people. You seem to think it important that I declare you the Superior Catholic to Stuart. Not my call. That one’s up to God. For my part, I regard you both as disastrously dangerous guides to the Faith.

Posted by stilbelieve on Tuesday, Jul 29, 2014 2:08 AM (EDT):

@Mark: “Stillbelieve: Your obsessive Protestant prooftexting notwithstanding, the Church teaches that the responsibility of the state is to provide for the common good.”

You criticize my Catholicism instead of Stuart Kenny’s who says, “I support a woman’s right to fulfill her God-given vocation to make decisions for the baby hidden in her womb without interference from the State. I trust women to not murder their unborn children. Just like God, who gave women the sacred trust to be mothers in the first place.”

57,000,000 murdered American babies since Roe v. Wade, and you are silent on his Catholicism, expressed numerous times here, but you feel the need to educate me on mine? Stuart Kenny is the epitome of a
“seamless garment” Catholic, feeling so morally superior in the pro-abortion Democratic Party. He is on the road to losing his eternal salvation, and you haven’t once challenged or corrected him. What am I missing here?

Posted by Casting Crowns on Tuesday, Jul 29, 2014 1:17 AM (EDT):

@Mark, You have written and expressed a fair and a well thought narrative. Even the Preamble of the United States Constitution supports the promotion of the “general welfare” of the people. In other terms, the “common good.”
.
Be one Catholic or Protestant, a proper Christian attitude is to care for those unable to care for themselves. The parables of the Good Samaritan and the woman dropping her 2 coins (“all she had”) in the basket offer biblical support. In addition, dismissing one’s obligation to make charitable contributions because they pay taxes to the state and federal government is a false view of Christian charity for those who buy that ideology. Perhaps the argument should be better framed using a different approach. Taxes which are unwisely administered by politicians and bureaucrats while building inefficient, wasteful government bureaucracies neither serve the truly needy nor those who actually do pay taxes. Likewise (and equally sinful) are those who further their own interests by creating a mentality of entitlements and handouts for *some* people which produce and serve to stunt an individual’s full potential in Christ.
.
We should endorse taxes and charitable giving on this basis alone —for as we have been blessed, so too will our own blessings be used by God to bless others. Amen. There is no argument there. The real problem stems from the power of the state. When taxes exceed a fairness quotient, even God’s people are thwarted and are then limited in ability to contribute more to the church, the missions, the underprivileged, the infirm, the handicapped, battered women, the homeless, the hungry, the emotionally wounded, single moms and most of all to share the saving gospel of Jesus Christ with the lost.
.
The arguments put forth by those like Stuart Kenny on the issue of abortion are legion. They have compromised themselves for some invented “general good” of which Jesus said to be wary of. It’s impossible to argue matters of the Spirit with those in the flesh. Legalists never seem to understand “he was a liar from the beginning.”

Posted by Mark Shea on Monday, Jul 28, 2014 9:32 PM (EDT):

Stillbelieve: Your obsessive Protestant prooftexting notwithstanding, the Church teaches that the responsibility of the state is to provide for the common good. This is, and always has been done by what you call “redistribution of wealth” and the rest of us call “taxes”. The notion that the state social safety net is somehow stopping you from being that charitable giver who will solve the world’s ill all alone is a charming excuse for doing nothing, but in reality, if you care about the poor you won’t care whether you or the state get the credit since the point is helping the poor, not you.

Here is Pius XI in Casti Connbuii:

“If, however, for this purpose, private resources do not suffice, it is the duty of the public authority to supply for the insufficient forces of individual effort, particularly in a matter which is of such importance to the common weal, touching as it does the maintenance of the family and married people. If families, particularly those in which there are many children, have not suitable dwellings; if the husband cannot find employment and means of livelihood; if the necessities of life cannot be purchased except at exorbitant prices; if even the mother of the family to the great harm of the home, is compelled to go forth and seek a living by her own labor; if she, too, in the ordinary or even extraordinary labors of childbirth, is deprived of proper food, medicine, and the assistance of a skilled physician, it is patent to all to what an extent married people may lose heart, and how home life and the observance of God’s commands are rendered difficult for them; indeed it is obvious how great a peril can arise to the public security and to the welfare and very life of civil society itself when such men are reduced to that condition of desperation that, having nothing which they fear to lose, they are emboldened to hope for chance advantage from the upheaval of the state and of established order.

121. Wherefore, those who have the care of the State and of the public good cannot neglect the needs of married people and their families, without bringing great harm upon the State and on the common welfare. Hence, in making the laws and in disposing of public funds they must do their utmost to relieve the needs of the poor, considering such a task as one of the most important of their administrative duties.”

Rugged individualism is not Catholic. Neither is Protestant prooftexting.

Posted by stilbelieve on Monday, Jul 28, 2014 9:15 PM (EDT):

Throughout the gospels, Jesus never directed his disciple to help the poor by getting governments to confiscate peoples money to help them. He told them to do it themselves, and in doing so there will be rewards. Doing it your way, through government, neither you nor the government officials are going to be rewarded. You get your “reward” here by feeling you are “such good, kind people” that God does not need to reward you with heaven.

But you are in danger of losing your chance for heaven by given your name and endorsement to that despicable worldly organization called the Democratic Party, and in so doing, along with millions of others like you, you give that despicable organization the electoral power to keep the intrinsic evil of abortion - legal, and now, same-sex marriage. And for that, alone, you will be lining up on the left side of Jesus when he returns to judge the nations (Mt 25: 31-46. be sure to read the foot.)

Ironic, isn’t it, that the “left” in this world think they are so morally superior than the “right,” but when Jesus returns the “left” will hear “Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels;” and the “right” will here, “Come, you who are blessed by my Father. Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.”

There is still time, Stuart Kenny, to save your soul. Rethink your superior feelings.

Posted by BJ on Monday, Jul 28, 2014 6:01 PM (EDT):

I don’t often share your perspective, but this article explained (finally) the Seamless Garment theory in a way that makes it palatable and just. Thank you for such a balanced explanation! I’ve been force-fed the parodies, used by those who see the Seamless Garment as a vehicle to support their favorite ‘thread’ - at the expense of the other ‘threads’. For example, many opposed to the death penalty (not an intrinsic evil but rarely justified) give no concern to abortion or euthanasia (always an intrinsic evil). I’ve always known that Catholic Social Teaching is the fabric woven from all of the ‘threads’, but have found many people don’t adhere to this description - especially in relation to the Seamless Garment argument. Thus I’ve found that the ‘Social Justice’ crowd often neglects the unborn, elderly, or marriage in deference to unfettered immigration, unchecked wage increases or welfare, disdain for all business owners, and other pet ‘threads’. Often intrinsic evils (abortion, embryonic stem cell research, euthanasia, active homosexual lifestyle) are held as equal to those topics not as clear cut (Catholics can, and morally do, differ in their approach to poverty, immigration, wages, and other economic issues, for example). I’ll continue to advocate “the inter-relatedness of human life and human dignity and the proper hierarchy of various issues”, realizing that some aspects are up for discussion, while others are simply not.

Posted by Stuart Kenny on Monday, Jul 28, 2014 4:27 PM (EDT):

Have you ever read any Catholic social teaching? From what I can tell, distributivism is pretty much standard Catholic policy—of course, that philosophy was promoted by that leftist, socialist icon G. K. Chesterton.

“And, also doing something for the (unborn) directly, not through some government temple that showers all attention onto the government officials and their promoters, not God.” Change one small word and we agree!

Posted by stilbelieve on Monday, Jul 28, 2014 4:02 PM (EDT):

SK, “I’m not saying that Jesus commands the government to redistribute wealth.”

Well, since we are in agreement that “redistribution of wealth” is not a teaching of Jesus, then where do get the idea that it is a moral thing to do to confiscate my earnings and others to satisfy your desire to have government provide “‘free’ healthcare, help for the poor and homeless, amnesty for undocumented workers, and avoidance of war, etc. because (you) think those are the kind of things Jesus was concerned about?”

That’s called “coveting” which is against the law of God. As for what “Jesus was concerned about” was people obeying God’s laws; like “Thou shall not covet thy neighbor’s goods” and “Thou shall not murder.” And, also doing something for the poor directly, not through some government temple that showers all attention onto the government officials and their promoters, not God.

Posted by Casting Crowns on Monday, Jul 28, 2014 3:52 PM (EDT):

@Stuart Kenny: [“and Thomas Merton did too—and probably Pope Francis as well.) That’s why I think Catholic social teaching is God-inspired.
.
And there you have it. The icon of the leftist movement,—a reference to their hero, Thomas Merton.
.
Leave it to a French expatriate Catholic monk, a known Communist, schooled in England at (high brow) Cambridge, came to the United States to tell us how evil and corrupt Americans are (while living here) and then he went to live and die in Thailand.
.
Give us a break.

Posted by Casting Crowns on Monday, Jul 28, 2014 3:25 PM (EDT):

@Stuart Kenny: [“Jesus would call on nations to fairly redistribute their resources to the poor and undocumented.]
.
Friend, no one is undocumented. You are documented in the country of your native birth.
.
It’s continually fascinating that you know what Jesus “would” do.
.
No doubt you also support calling up the nations of Honduras, Guatemala El Salavdor and Mexico to redistribute their wealth in kind —or is it only the United States? You clearly ignore there is no nation on earth more generous than the U.S. And in terms of the sharing the gospel, 87% of the world’s missionaries come from the United States both Catholic and Protestant.
.
Sorry, the record is clear Jesus was not a Socialist. Until He went into ministry, Jesus worked for a living and (being the good Jewish man He was) also kept the Law of the tithe from Malachi 3. You won’t find anywhere Jesus telling Roman officials in Palestine to redistribute their resources.
.
Since you seem to enjoy putting your hands into other people’s pockets, perhaps you’ll tell us what percentage of your own resources you personally “redistribute?”

Posted by Stuart Kenny on Monday, Jul 28, 2014 3:16 PM (EDT):

I’m not saying that Jesus commands the government to redistribute wealth.

I am free to vote, however, on my Christian principles. There is nothing sinful in having a view of government which includes free healthcare, help for the poor and homeless, amnesty for undocumented workers, and avoidance of war, etc. because I think those are the kind of things Jesus was concerned about. Paul says that the government is set up for the common good, and in a democracy, I can vote in the way I believe best promotes that common good. If I get more votes than you do, I win. :)

@SK: “The Pope is the Vicar of Christ. What he says to the bishops is what Jesus would say to His Disciples.”

What the pope had to say was an apostolic exhortation, not doctrine. What Jesus said is the law. So, show me where Jesus instructed his disciples to go get governments to take care of what he taught them to do themselves.

As for Protestant churches, I selected the Catholic Church and like a good Catholic I READ my Catholic bible INCLUDING the footnotes which are helpful in understand what Jesus said and means. That is why I am asking you to show me where Jesus directed his disciples to get governments to do what he directed them to do themselves. Some where you seemed to pick up a wrong teaching of Jesus’.

Posted by Stuart Kenny on Monday, Jul 28, 2014 2:19 PM (EDT):

“Stuart, the question is not what the Pope wrote or the U.S. bishops, but what did Jesus teach his disciples in the gospels about taking care of those in need?”

The Pope is the Vicar of Christ. What he says to the bishops is what Jesus would say to His Disciples. Pope Francis quotes extensively from the Gospels to explain what Jesus would teach to nations today, as does the USCCB in their encyclical. According to the Pope and the bishops, who have the vocation to explain the teachings of Jesus, Jesus would call on nations to fairly redistribute their resources to the poor and undocumented. If you disagree with the Pope and the bishops, there are many Protestant churches who will welcome you.

Are there fewer abortions in Ireland or in Sweden? Wouldn’t you choose the nation with the fewest abortions as a model? Wouldn’t it be a mortal sin to vote for policies which you have evidence won’t work instead of policies which you have evidence do work?

Posted by mrscracker on Monday, Jul 28, 2014 10:22 AM (EDT):

I’d double check that list of countries above for accuracy.Within Mexico, the Federal State of Mexico allows abortion up to the 12th week of pregnancy. Mexico City,maybe the world’s 3rd largest city,is within that jurisdiction.
Personally, I’d choose Ireland or the Philippines for my model, but the same anti-life forces are hard at work in those nations, too.
And Sweden was one of the very last countries still practising eugenic sterilizations- which in part targeted minorities.They also currently keep police files on every Roma(Gypsy) inhabitant, including 2 year olds.Sweden has no opt-out for conscientious objection for healthcare professionals opposed to abortion.Sweden has many positive things going for it, I’m sure, but there’s a dark side, as well.Pretty much like everywhere else.

Posted by stilbelieve on Monday, Jul 28, 2014 2:13 AM (EDT):

Stuart, the question is not what the Pope wrote or the U.S. bishops, but what did Jesus teach his disciples in the gospels about taking care of those in need?

Posted by Stuart Kenny on Monday, Jul 28, 2014 1:02 AM (EDT):

Yes, I am a Catholic.

“I ask you, again, show me where Jesus taught his disciples to go get government to do what he taught them to do themselves.”

I defer to the Pope who best explains this in Evangelii Gaudium, available at the Vatican website. I also defer to the USCCB and their encyclical “Economic Justice For All” linked here: http://www.usccb.org/upload/economic_justice_for_all.pdf

Here’s a list of countries where abortion is outlawed—which would you choose as our model?

- See more at: http://www.whichcountry.co/countries-where-abortion-is-illegal/#sthash.dczRvbnV.dpuf

Posted by stilbelieve on Monday, Jul 28, 2014 12:25 AM (EDT):

@SK: “I will happily redistribute America’s resources to welcome and aid the unborn, the undocumented, and the refugee—all the poor and unwanted. That’s pro-life.”

I ask you, again, show me where Jesus taught his disciples to go get government to do what he taught them to do themselves.

Posted by stilbelieve on Monday, Jul 28, 2014 12:22 AM (EDT):

@SK: “I’m a Democrat.”

Are you a Catholic?

Posted by stilbelieve on Monday, Jul 28, 2014 12:20 AM (EDT):

@SK “I agree—Mary was born without sin. I don’t see that any State was born without sin. The State will not protect unborn children, even if abortion is outlawed. Women, who have been given the vocation to motherhood, are more likely to protect their unborn children than the State.”

Show me the facts under existing history when abortion was prohibited that the state did not protect unborn children.

Posted by Casting Crowns on Sunday, Jul 27, 2014 11:55 PM (EDT):

@Stuart Kenny: [“the Catechism: 2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury.”]
.
Your reference to the CCC is without merit and bankrupt. No one has suggested violence or injury to Obama or his people for his abortion politics
.
[“of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor
.
More theatrics by referencing the CCC. Sufficient *foundation* has already been laid as a Community Organizer and as a US Senator. We know from Obama’s own statements, positions and voting record what his position on abortion is. Unwanted pregnancies are a “mistake.”
.
[“Under Obama, we have the lowest rate of abortion in twenty years.”]
.
And this is something for YOU to be proud of? That’s a false starter.
.
[“Countries, like Sweden and Denmark, where abortion is legal but there is a strong safety net made from people’s hard-earned tax dollars, the abortion rate is the lowest in the world.
.
Irrelevant to the discussion. Americans do not vote for government leaders or polices occurring in Sweden and Denmark.
.
[“If Republicans can’t find the resources to take of all the unwanted undocumented workers and refugee children, where are they going to find the resources to take care of all the children who will be born if we outlaw abortion?
.
Thus you have exposed your true self and rationale for supporting abortion.
.
How about the Catholic governments of dominantly Catholic Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador finding their own resources, building a moral spine, standing up like men and being accountable. Why are 30 year old Central American Catholic men impregnating 14 year old girls and then sending them to North America? Why is Catholic Mexico enabling their neighbors to the south? Why are the Mexican Catholic Bishops saying and doing nothing to help their Catholic “brothers and sisters” on their border? Why are their Catholic Bishops not holding their Catholic officials accountable? Extrapolating your logic, we should also welcome all refugees from North Korea, China, Zaire, Indonesia, Nigeria and the Sudan. Why isn’t the Pope advocating migration to Italy and his own homeland, Argentina?
.
[“I’m a Democrat”]
.
Of course you are. You have correctly identified your problem.
.
[“I will happily redistribute America’s resources.”]
.
Distribute your own,—not ours.

Posted by Stuart Kenny on Sunday, Jul 27, 2014 10:47 PM (EDT):

“this abortion President”

Once again, from the Catechism: 2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury.278 He becomes guilty:

- of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor

Under Obama, we have the lowest rate of abortion in twenty years. If we continue with these types of policies, there will be fewer and fewer abortions. Countries, like Sweden and Denmark, where abortion is legal but there is a strong safety net made from people’s hard-earned tax dollars, the abortion rate is the lowest in the world. Though Jesus does not directly command the government to distribute money this way, I will happily give my hard-earned tax dollars to safety-net programs which will lead to abortions rates like that of Sweden. I think it’s a mortal sin to know policies which have been shown to reduce abortion rates and not vote for them.

I agree—Mary was born without sin. I don’t see that any State was born without sin. The State will not protect unborn children, even if abortion is outlawed. Women, who have been given the vocation to motherhood, are more likely to protect their unborn children than the State.

If Republicans can’t find the resources to take of all the unwanted undocumented workers and refugee children, where are they going to find the resources to take care of all the children who will be born if we outlaw abortion? How are they going to take of all those new infants who will suddenly be granted citizenship if we give them the rights of full persons? Why should we suddenly give blanket amnesty and legal rights to the unborn if we can’t handle the ones who are already here?

I’m a Democrat—I will happily redistribute America’s resources to welcome and aid the unborn, the undocumented, and the refugee—all the poor and unwanted. That’s pro-life. I don’t see Republicans as pro-life—if they don’t want taxpayer dollars going to the refugee children coming over our borders, then they don’t want the unborn children entering our country, either.

Posted by Casting Crowns on Sunday, Jul 27, 2014 8:05 PM (EDT):

@Stuart Kenny: These people might be your brand of Catholics.

When Obama did his left coast DNC fundraising campaign swing last week in Seattle and LA, the middle stop was in San Francisco/Silicon Valley. They were hosted by Catholics—“George and Judy Marcus” ( a big time Silicon Valley Real Estate titan). The luncheon netted your abortion and your partial-birth abortion President $32,000.00 per plate. In attendance (of which you probably wanted your photo taken with Obama) were two local members of Congress—- Catholic Nancy Pelosi and Catholic Anna Eshoo. Clearly, they must have “examined,” emptied (and sold out) their conscience decades ago on the issue of abortion.
.
Further, there is no evidence the Bishop of the Diocese of San Jose, CA nor their parish Pastor has ever counseled the Marcus’ about their support of this abortion President.

Posted by stilbelieve on Sunday, Jul 27, 2014 4:46 PM (EDT):

@Stuart Kenny: “I would say that God’s trust in Mary to bear and raise His Only Son is an act of trust in women that I think should be legally given to all women and their unborn children.”

Mary, the mother of Jesus, was the only human who was sinless from the moment of her creation. God knew he could trust her just as he knew he could trust Jesus, the only other person born without sin, to follow his commandments. Now, if you know all women are born without sin, you might have something.

You said, “If you don’t think a woman has committed murder after having an abortion and should be given either the death penalty or life in prison, then you are, technically, pro-choice—you have shown you don’t think that an embryo is the same as an adult person.”

There are various degrees of murder. And our judicial system recognizes mercy in judging crimes; abortion is one of those crimes. The penalty has always been most harsh on those who perform them.

You said, “Like drug laws, the State will pick and choose who it wants to prosecute.” See above answer.

You said, “I can’t believe you would agree to contraception as a way to reduce abortion—you can’t do evil in order to do good.”

Not all men or women are of the same spiritual mindset as me; they are going to use them because they are the most common and easiest methods available. Catholics teach a natural way to plan their families; it takes discipline and love of each other and God. The real strength in reducing unwanted pregnancy will be directed towards men to be responsible for what they do. If a pregnancy occurs in an unmarried couple, he has the option to marry the woman, or to pay child support if the woman does not adopt the child out.

You said, “About work….I am more willing to have my tax dollars fall into the hands of the lazy poor, because, to Jesus, we are all the lazy poor. As Dorothy Day, one of my Catholic heroes, says, ‘The Gospel takes away our right forever, to discriminate between the deserving and the undeserving poor.’”

Show me in the Gospels where Jesus teaches his disciples to go get government to do what he directed them to do themselves. No government is going to heaven or any politician who covets and confiscates a working man’s or woman’s wages to redistribute it to people with less money; nor is anybody voting for such politicians going to earn any reward in heaven for doing that. Too many Catholics and Democrats shift the responsibility of caring for the poor off onto the government, relieving them of the responsibility Jesus directed us to do ourselves.

Posted by Casting Crowns on Saturday, Jul 26, 2014 7:37 PM (EDT):

@Stuart Kenny: You have become immersed in the Catholic “Examination of Conscience” using this to support and justify the sin of abortion.

Posted by Stuart Kenny on Saturday, Jul 26, 2014 7:24 PM (EDT):

1. True—what I hear you doing with my answers is probably more rash judgment than calumny:

CCC2478 To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor’s thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:

Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another’s statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. And if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved.280

2. I would say that God’s trust in Mary to bear and raise His Only Son is an act of trust in women that I think should be legally given to all women and their unborn children.

3. If you don’t think a woman has committed murder after having an abortion and should be given either the death penalty or life in prison, then you are, technically, pro-choice—you have shown you don’t think that an embryo is the same as an adult person.

Yes, the government has limited resources in all areas and must make decisions about their allocation. Even if abortion is outlawed, there is no guarantee that the government will allocate resources for arrest and prosecution. Like drug laws, the State will pick and choose who it wants to prosecute. The State is unlikely to prosecute women who abort Down’s Syndrome babies because such children would cost the State more money than they would produce—since they won’t be able to “work for food.”

4. I can’t believe you would agree to contraception as a way to reduce abortion—you can’t do evil in order to do good.

5. About work, Jesus said, “Consider the lilies of the field. They toil not, neither do they spin. Yet I say unto you, even Solomon, in all his glory, was not arrayed as one of these” and “The rain falls on the just and the unjust.” We are called to trust God for our daily bread, not the Corporation. I am more than willing to have my tax dollars fall into the hands of the lazy poor, because, to Jesus, we are all the lazy poor. As Dorothy Day, one of my Catholic heroes, says, “The Gospel takes away our right forever, to discriminate between the deserving and the undeserving poor.”

Posted by stilbelieve on Saturday, Jul 26, 2014 3:25 PM (EDT):

1. What part of what I said is false or calumny? I’m making a statement based I what you have written, and logic.

2. God trusted Adam and Eve not to eat the forbidden fruit from one tree in the middle of the garden. They broke that trust and were punished, as have all their descendants. God gave man the Ten Commandments, and punishes them when they break them. One commandment is, “Thou Shalt not murder.” Abortion is murder. The cause of those sins being committed is Satan, not God. God gives us free will, and instructs us to obey his commandments. Man has proven to be unworthy of God’s trust. God knows that, but still gives us the chance to repent and sin no more. Murder, while against the law in every culture, still is committed. Because it is committed is no reason not to have laws against it. Likewise, God created woman and man to be joined physically and in so doing they create new life together as a gift from God borne in the woman. It is natural law that it occurs, not because God “trust” woman to do no harm to the child, but because that is how he made her body to function in relationship with her husband.

3. The state does not have “limited resources”, as you stated, relevant to murder. In fact, the resources relevant to abortion are quite simple - the legal restrictions are placed against the physicians which makes the profession be self-policing. Who wants to throw away their medical training and reputation by conducting an illegal medical procedure? Laws against abortion will not stop them entirely, just like laws against murdering born persons hasn’t stopped them; but it certainly has reduced their occurrences. Reinstating laws against abortion will seriously reduce their occurrences, just like they did before Roe v. Wade.

4. Not only will outlawing abortion again reduce the numbers of babies being murdered, it will increase the use of contraceptives under the realization that legal, easy abortions will not be available. There might not be any change at all in the birthrate of the low income and poor. With proper social welfare counseling and programs, the birth among that sector my even be reduced as long as there are no financial incentives to have more babies.

5. Just like the women have to suffer in giving birth because of Eve; men will have to work for a living because of Adam. While God made woman in such a way to bear children, He made man in such a way to work. And as St. Paul taught, “No work, no food.” Reinstating laws against abortion will result in men becoming more like men, and take more responsibility to prevent unwanted pregnancies while holding them financially accountable for whatever unwanted children do come into the world because of them. DNA, babe, will be a Godsend in that area. Men will no longer have a “free ride.”

Posted by Stuart Kenny on Saturday, Jul 26, 2014 1:04 PM (EDT):

“You believe God has created life to be aborted, and it is OK with God if women do so, thereby making it not an intrinsic evil. You also believe people, like you, who purposely vote for government officials who insure that abortion will remain legal, are not committing a serious sin, either.”

2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury.278 He becomes guilty:

- of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor;

- of detraction who, without objectively valid reason, discloses another’s faults and failings to persons who did not know them;279

- of calumny who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them.

2484 The gravity of a lie is measured against the nature of the truth it deforms, the circumstances, the intentions of the one who lies, and the harm suffered by its victims. If a lie in itself only constitutes a venial sin, it becomes mortal when it does grave injury to the virtues of justice and charity.

Honestly, stillbelieve, why do you think that even if abortion is outlawed, the State will use its limited resources to protect the unborn?

If the State continually makes exceptions as it does for drug laws and immigration laws, why don’t you think the State will never make exceptions about which children can be aborted?

How can it be a sin to vote to give a woman the freedom to perform her God-given vocation without interference from the State?

If God trusts women not to kill their unborn children, why shouldn’t I trust them?

Are you saying God doesn’t trust women not to kill their unborn children?

Why did God give women the vocation to motherhood if He intended to later take it away from them and give it to the State?

I hope you will answer each of these questions specifically, the way I have answered yours.

Posted by stilbelieve on Saturday, Jul 26, 2014 12:43 PM (EDT):

@Stuart Kenny: “I will vote that women are given the freedom to do what God has called them to do.”

So we are back to this? You believe God has created life to be aborted, and it is OK with God if women do so, thereby making it not an intrinsic evil. You also believe people, like you, who purposely vote for government officials who insure that abortion will remain legal, are not committing a serious sin, either.

Posted by GregB on Saturday, Jul 26, 2014 11:41 AM (EDT):

@Stuart Kenny:
*
To equate poverty and immigration to abortion you would need to make the poor and the immigrants subject to a death penalty that could be imposed without any legal due process rights. Your argument is approaching that of Jonathan Swift’s “A Modest Proposal.”

Posted by Stuart Kenny on Saturday, Jul 26, 2014 8:12 AM (EDT):

Let’s say the State outlaws abortion. All the babies who were not being born are suddenly being born. Suddenly, we have a situation like the influx of undocumented workers and children across our borders. And like the immigration crisis, most of the new babies will be from minority mothers since whites, regardless of Church teaching, will be using contraception.

So, we have this crisis of new, poor, minority children being born in our midst—crossing our borders, if you will. Republicans realize that most of these newly born citizens will vote Democrat. Though they have firmly stood by the new laws which outlaw abortion, Republicans might find a way to selectively enforce the laws so that fewer minority children get born, say by offering tax breaks to minority women who use contraception, get sterilized, or end their pregnancies.

If we don’t have the resources to help an influx of refugee children or undocumented workers, or give citizenship to workers who are already here, where are we going to find the resources to help all the minority children who will get born if we outlaw abortion?

Even with laws outlawing abortion in place, if there are those in the State who want to get around those laws for various reasons, they will find ways. The State doesn’t have the same concern for an unborn child as the mother does. Even when the State’s laws are based on God’s laws, God gets pushed to one side if the secular State needs to protect itself.

God gave women the vocation to be mothers. Therefore, women will more likely to have to good of their unborn children at heart than the State. I will continue to vote for women to make decisions about unborn children and not the State. I will vote that women are given the freedom to do what God has called them to do.

Posted by stilbelieve on Saturday, Jul 26, 2014 2:17 AM (EDT):

“why won’t the State use selective reinforcement when it comes to abortion laws?”

Because the law protects innocent human life as God’s law is protecting innocent human life. God’s law does not discriminate between innocent human life and innocent disabled human life because it is life of the later that produces the inspiration to care for all innocent human life and inspires human life to find cures of life created with the need for special caring for our disabled “neighbor.”

Posted by stilbelieve on Saturday, Jul 26, 2014 2:03 AM (EDT):

“What if South Dakota decides it doesn’t want any more autistic children because they cost the State too much money?”

Now, you are giving me a hypothetical. I said don’t give me hypothetical. Besides, no state is saying that.

Posted by stilbelieve on Saturday, Jul 26, 2014 1:59 AM (EDT):

“If we impose a legal penalty on a woman who ends a pregnancy, then we are using the State to allow women only one decision. Coercing a decision, even if it’s a right decision, gives the State power it shouldn’t have.”

The state does not have a right to protect innocent human life? If not, then you are rejecting God’s saying, “Choice life.” And you are saying the 5th Commandment to “Do not murder” is not to be obeyed.

Posted by stilbelieve on Saturday, Jul 26, 2014 1:50 AM (EDT):

“If we outlaw abortion, then we are coercing women to have children.”

No. She does not have to sexual relations that could result in a child being created.

Posted by Stuart Kenny on Friday, Jul 25, 2014 10:55 PM (EDT):

If we outlaw abortion, then we are coercing women to have children. If we impose a legal penalty on a woman who ends a pregnancy, then we are using the State to allow women only one decision. Coercing a decision, even if it’s a right decision, gives the State power it shouldn’t have. It’s like the State imposing limits on drink cup size—yes, the State is forcing us to make good decisions, but we should be free to make those decisions for ourselves.

South Dakota currently has laws in place which force a woman to make only one possible decision. What if South Dakota decides it doesn’t want any more autistic children because they cost the State too much money? It can then selectively enforce the law. South Dakota can say, “Abortions are outlawed. But if your child is going to be born autistic, then we will not enforce the law in your case. Also, we will give you a tax break if you choose to end a pregnancy which would result in an autistic child.”

Outlawing abortion simply gives the State the upper hand when it comes to who lives and who dies by selective enforcement of the abortion laws. If the State uses selective enforcement when it comes to drugs and immigration, why won’t the State use selective reinforcement when it comes to abortion laws?

Posted by stilbelieve on Friday, Jul 25, 2014 7:41 PM (EDT):

“I think that if we give the State the power to coerce”

How is the state “coercing” the women one way or the other? Give me some real examples of that being done, not hypothetical. What department of the state would have that power? And are you talking about the federal state, the state state, county state, or the city state. Or do you have some other state in mind?

Posted by Stuart Kenny on Friday, Jul 25, 2014 7:00 PM (EDT):

“Do you believe the state is doing this against the woman’s will?”

I think that if we give the State the power to coerce women to either have or not have their unborn children, then it is a slippery slope to where the State decides which unborn child lives and which dies—no matter what the woman wants. Let’s say we outlaw abortion entirely. Let’s say a woman comes to the court with a petition for an exception: tests show her child will be born gay. The State looks at that petition and says, “Well, we don’t want anymore gay children. Although abortion is outlawed, we will make an exception in your case.

Outlawing abortion puts life and death of the unborn in the hands of the State because the State can then decide which cases it is going to prosecute. Look how the State currently has decided not to prosecute certain immigration laws and drug laws—how long will it be before the State decides not to prosecute women whose children might be born with Down’s Syndrome or some other thing which would put a burden on the State’s finances?

I think keeping decisions about unborn children in the God-given hands of women is the best way to protect them.

Posted by stilbelieve on Friday, Jul 25, 2014 4:44 PM (EDT):

Stuart Kenny - Be sure you answer my question to you yesterday around 12:50ish.

Posted by Casting Crowns on Friday, Jul 25, 2014 4:21 PM (EDT):

@stilbelieve: The problem you have identified is directly connected to an invented theological bent which provides Catholic lawmakers and abortion rights Catholics their pitiful excuse. Nowhere in the gospel can be found Jesus making any reference to “an examination of conscience.” And there you have it.

Jeremiah 1:5—“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,” is not open to any “examination of conscience.” Either you believe the word of the living God or you do not.

Posted by stilbelieve on Friday, Jul 25, 2014 3:54 PM (EDT):

C.C. - I,too, watched those hearings and was aghast how disrespectful the Democrats were in tone and statements towards the nominees. I don’t ever remember seeing such calumny behavior before in such hearings. It’s like all the Democrats took angry pills. Later, after I read Bernardin’s Gannon Lecture speech at Fordham U, and the biography written by a long time friend of his called “Cardinal Bernardin…Easing conflicts - and battling for the soul of American Catholicism” that I found at a library book sale about 15 years ago, especially pages 242,243, and 244, everything fell into place - the “Seamless garment” freed the Catholic Democrat Senators from worrying about the Catholic vote over abortion ever again. Regardless what the bishops had to say about abortion, the politicians knew how the “seamless garment” would play out in the real world; they knew the Catholics would not ever be leaving the party now.

Am I the only one that noticed no bishop ever made a critical remark about the pro-abortion Democrats’ treatment of nominees who may be anti-Roe v. Wade if they got on the Supreme Court? Their silence, when it came to Democrat calumny towards Republican nominees, and Republicans in general was shocking, just like their silence to Obama’s answer to Rick Warren’s question about when he thought a baby “should be given their rights.” Constitutional scholar from Harvard Law School said, “That question is above my pay grade.”

Posted by Casting Crowns on Thursday, Jul 24, 2014 3:33 PM (EDT):

@stilbelieve: Thanks for those comments. My experience is somewhat similar to your own. I became politically aware of how radical and demonic the Democratic position on abortion is after watching so many Senate hearings over Supreme Court nominees. It was an absolute scandal of ungodly vile and ugliness to watch the scorched earth trashing of nominees holding a Pro-Life record by Catholic US Senators like Patrick Leahy (VT) and Ted Kennedy (MA) on the Judiciary Committee.—
Abortion is a defining position of one’s character and position before God. Clinton’s attempt to compromise with his “Make it safe, but rare” only was to play both ends for political expediency. A lot of people say they are Christian or Catholic but still vote holding a worldview. They’re not “all in.” Lawmakers who claim to follow Christ yet refuse to support ending abortion are not even in the Jesus gospel category of the lukewarm.—
Among the worst examples were Catholic Gov. Mario Cuomo(D-NY) and VP nominee Catholic Congresswoman Geraldine Ferraro (D-NY). Both said “While I am personally against abortion, I cannot impose my religious beliefs upon others.” What nonsense. Like somehow when you are elected to office, a man or woman is expected to erase the values of the core being.

Posted by stilbelieve on Thursday, Jul 24, 2014 3:21 PM (EDT):

Anne, I agree, the Church should end taking and seeking grants from the government, especially now that that government is putting restrictions on her governing her own affairs. No bishops nor priests have shown me where in the gospels Jesus taught his disciples to go get government to do what he taught them to do themselves. It is the evil hand of Satan that has brought the Church and the government together like this for the supposed purpose of doing “God’s work.” That has resulted in abortion-on-demand remaining the law of the land; same-sex “marriages” in 17 states, mostly by judges striking down state laws; a frontal attack on the Church in mandating birth-control in health insurance to employees; and an attack on everyone’s Constitutional Right to Freedom of Religion.

I would change one of your words, “uncatechized” to “improperly catechized,” and not just the laity, but the clergy, too. Half of the clergy are not even registered to vote; and of those who are, the majority endorse with their name the pro-abortion Democratic Party. I checked the voter registrations for priest in the Diocese of Orange, Ca, and some of the priests in the Archdioceses of LA back in 2000, and found that to be the case. I rechecked the Diocese of Orange last year and found half of the priest are still not registered to vote, and of those who are 22% endorsed the pro-abortion Democratic Party, that is some 41 years after Roe v. Wade, and now, also, the party of same-sex marriage; the party attacking the Church directly and everyone’s constitutional right of Freedom of Religion. The diocese of Orange is in a very conservative county in CA, and a near majority of its priests are still endorsing the D party with their name. Can you imagine what it is like in Chicago and all the other heavily populate Democratic Party cities and states?

Posted by mrscracker on Thursday, Jul 24, 2014 2:52 PM (EDT):

stilbelieve,
I registered GOP, too because without that I wouldn’t be able to vote in some primaries.I’d rather be an independent.
I pretty much agree with what you say.
I actually volunteered for Jimmy Carter back in the day.I thought as a Southern, Christian gentleman he’d be a great president.Big dissapointment there.But I still think he’s a well meaning person & has integrity.I just disagree with him on a large # of issues.
Sure, there are sincerely prolife GOP politicians.Then there are the ones who pander & adopt the moral views of their constituents for convenience.When the wind changes, they change, too.
We have one locally who’s married with children & ran his campaign on restoring “family values.” He was later videotaped on a security camera necking with his also married staff assistant.Someone asked him when he’d found religion & supposedly he told them it was when he figured he needed that handle to win the election.The governor told him to step down & stop embarrassing the state GOP party, but he’s still here.
I guess what really matters is how they vote, though.We can’t read folks’ hearts.Someone said we all aim at virtue & fall short.Our congressman was dumb enough to get caught on a security camera, but I expect the smarter ones do the same under the radar.Sad for their families, but if they vote for virtue, I suppose that’s what counts in the end.

Posted by stilbelieve on Thursday, Jul 24, 2014 2:04 PM (EDT):

@mrscracker: “It’s true that Democrats have overwhelmingly voted against pro-life legislation, but I don’t know how many GOP are actually sincere in their beliefs on that issue.”

Since starting in the pro-life movement as a Democrat in the mid 70s and focusing my volunteering efforts to elect pro-life members to Congress, because that is where a Constitutional Right to Life Amendment would have to come from, I got to know Republican candidates because they were the only ones running who were pro-life. I found the Republican candidates very sincere in their pro-life position as well as the Republican volunteers I was working with. But there is a battle still being waged in the party between mostly establishment Republicans members(not the candidates) and conservatives over the importance of this issue. Conservatives took the lead in the late 70s when they got support for a RTL Constitutional Amendment plank in the Party Platform. It is still part of the Party Platform, but the other side is still trying in subtle ways to to reduce its importance in campaigns.

I registered out of the Democratic Party a couple years after starting to volunteer, but I could not register as a Republican, emotionally, because the residue of the brain washing I had as a Catholic Democrat growing up with about them; even though I found the Republican people I was meeting were nothing like I was told they were like. Nevertheless, I registered Independent. I registered in the Republican Party when they adopted the RTL plank in their Party Platform. I knew how “politically incorrect” pro-life was perceived to be back then and I thought if they had the guts to take a strong position on pro-life, then I will give them my name is support of their principled decision.

Posted by stilbelieve on Thursday, Jul 24, 2014 12:59 PM (EDT):

@Stuart Kenny: ” I believe the State is more likely to kill an unborn child than a woman.”

Do you believe the state is doing this against the woman’s will?

Posted by Casting Crowns on Thursday, Jul 24, 2014 11:55 AM (EDT):

@Stuart Kenny: [“If someone is gay, who searches for the Lord and has goodwill, who am I to judge?”]—
If someone is gay, who searches for the Lord and has good will, he can trust the judgment of *God’s* viewpoint. You don’t need to judge since God has already made His judgment known concerning homosexual behavior in the Scriptures.—
[“I know of gay people outside the Church who believe that God has called them to lifelong, monogamous, same-sex relationships.”]—
Friend, such a viewpoint is called living under Satanic deception or merely have chosen to adopt this view out of personal convenience to get one’s own needs met outside the will of God. Consult Romans 1:25 to wit -“They have exchanged the truth for a lie.” God does not call people to sinful behavior in direct violation of His word.—
[“I know of gay people outside the Church”]—
What church is that? You can easily find several apostate churches willing to approve and accommodate the sinfulness of homosexual behavior including the left and radical wing of Episcopols and Methodists. No doubt the Weslesy’s have rolled over in their graves.—
Regarding your validation of Obama hero-worship. You can also find approval in his Chicago church (Trinity United Church of Christ) where Michelle introduced Barack to so-called Christianity. The Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s successor, the Rev. Otis Moss III (Sr. Pastor) fully supports gay marriage and urged the Illinois legislature to make gay marriage legal.

Posted by ANNE on Thursday, Jul 24, 2014 11:37 AM (EDT):

All the Church teachings “Doctrine of the Faith” can be found in the “Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition” (with footnotes for those who are interested in sources of additional info).
This includes social teachings.
.
The “Seamless Garment” given by Bernardin at Fordham University in Dec, 1983 was / is in error, by stating that Pro-Life persons must be “EQUALLY VISABLE” in tax, employment and other social issues.
It was designed as a way to promote pro-abortion Catholic democrats with whom the late Cardinal was close, the Seamless Garment sought to deflect attention from the fact the America was slaughtering millions of unborn children each year.
.
Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope Benedict) corrected the heresy in “Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion - General Principles.”
.
Court Ordered published documents by the Chicago Diocese also prove that Bernardin was also guilty in aiding and abetting by moving pedophiles from parish to parish.
_________________________

Posted by GregB on Thursday, Jul 24, 2014 11:32 AM (EDT):

Stuart Kenny wrote:
*
And, GregB, please read your Catechism: 2358 (Homosexuals) must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.
Obama made the Christian decision to avoid unjust persecution of homosexuals in the workplace.
*
Then how do you explain the reaction of the U.S. Bishops? This web site has an article about it titled ‘U.S. Bishops: Obama’s Executive Order ‘Unprecedented and Extreme’’ The URL is:
*
http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/u.s.-bishops-obamas-executive-order-unprecedented-and-extreme/
*
I can only go by what I read in the media. The people in the article sound very concerned about this executive order.

Posted by mrscracker on Thursday, Jul 24, 2014 10:51 AM (EDT):

There’s a reasonable social fabric which protects human rights in all stages of development. It doesn’t have to be a choice between a police state or a silly, libertarian free for all.

Posted by Stuart Kenny on Thursday, Jul 24, 2014 3:58 AM (EDT):

I support a woman’s right to fulfill her God-given vocation to make decisions for the baby hidden in her womb without interference from the State. I trust women to not murder their unborn children. Just like God, who gave women the sacred trust to be mothers in the first place.

I don’t know of any “sexually active, unrepentant, and militant homosexuals.” I know of gay people outside the Church who believe that God has called them to lifelong, monogamous, same-sex relationships. If someone is gay, who searches for the Lord and has goodwill, who am I to judge?

Posted by TexasKnight on Thursday, Jul 24, 2014 1:50 AM (EDT):

“Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil, who change darkness into light, and light into darkness, who change bitter into sweet, and sweet into bitter!” Isaiah 5:20

If you support a woman’s right to legally chose death for the baby hidden in her womb, then you are complicit in murder and thus, guilty of a grave sin. I pray that you will renounce the devil and all his works and ask God for forgiveness.

Posted by Casting Crowns on Thursday, Jul 24, 2014 1:50 AM (EDT):

@Stuart Kenny: [“Catechism: 2358 (Homosexuals) must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity.”]—
If you think 2358 applies to sexually active, unrepentant and militant homosexuals, you are either delusional or an understudy to Jay Carney.

Posted by Stuart Kenny on Thursday, Jul 24, 2014 1:24 AM (EDT):

The thing is, TexasKnight, I think YOU are the evil one—you are the one who needs to be brought back to Jesus. Your lack of interest in the protection of all the unborn who die due to war, famine, lack of health-care, etc. shows you are just using the lives of the unborn as a prop for your conservative agenda. Your calumny toward people you disagree with (there are NO “pro-death” politicians—we are ALL working for the common good) shows you have no care for protecting the reputation of others. God is the Avenger of Innocent Blood—the dead in Gaza, the dead along our borders, the dead from famine caused by global warming, the dead from our killing economic system, the dead from zenophobia, homophobia, misogyny—their blood is on your head, and God will avenge them all. We Christians want to win the Church back away from you and for Jesus who welcomes all the people you hate.

Those Democrats who, like God, trust women to fulfill their vocation as mothers and give them the freedom to act on that vocation without interference from the government, have not only not excommunicated themselves, they have show themselves to be on God’s side as champions of women and the unborn whom God entrusts to women.

And, GregB, please read your Catechism: 2358 (Homosexuals) must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.

Obama made the Christian decision to avoid unjust persecution of homosexuals in the workplace.

Posted by GregB on Wednesday, Jul 23, 2014 11:20 PM (EDT):

All this talk about the seamless garment is all well and good, but it seems to be ignoring an important point. Forces opposed to the teachings of the Catholic Church have proven very willing to link things like the reproductive rights agenda to everything that they can get their hands on. Obama’s recent executive order doesn’t have any religious exemptions in it. At what point does the seamless garment cease being a seamless garment and start becoming the spiritual equivalent of an explosive suicide vest? St. Paul did warn the Corinthians about eating the meat offered to idols, and the dangerous bad example that it provided.

Posted by TexasKnight on Wednesday, Jul 23, 2014 10:57 PM (EDT):

Mark, you stated, “the “kick the impure out” wing of Catholics…” There’s the disconnect. We don’t want them to leave His Church. We want them to recognize the evil, repent and come back into communion with His Church. That is what His Church is for after all - to bring souls to Christ. I have faith that (at least most of) the pro-death politicians have been told by their bishops that they excommunicated themselves as clearly outlined in the CCC. And if you think that what then Cardinal Ratzinger wrote gives them some sort of cover, you are unfortunately sadly mistaken. Cardinal Arinze makes it very clear that a 7 year old knows it is murder. Google the following, “youtube Arinze mortal sin” and watch. “Let them remember that God is the Judge and Avenger of innocent blood which cries from earth to Heaven.” Casti Connubbi, 1930.

Posted by Casting Crowns on Wednesday, Jul 23, 2014 12:07 PM (EDT):

@Stuart Kenny: [“What I hear being said by others, and what I think is clearly calumny, is that if we give women total legal freedom to act in their God-given vocation as mothers, they will use that freedom to murder their unborn children.”]—
Validated by the fact the average Russian woman has 6 abortions in her lifetime. In 2012, there were 42 abortions for every 100 live births. My Stars !! Abortion must be the ultimate in “freedom.”

Posted by mrscracker on Wednesday, Jul 23, 2014 8:49 AM (EDT):

Legislation to restrict/govern abortion procedures is directed at the facilities & staff who perform them.Just as the State licenses & oversees other aspects of healthcare.
Doctors have a God given vocation to heal, but they can stray.Just like the rest of us.

Posted by Stuart Kenny on Wednesday, Jul 23, 2014 1:58 AM (EDT):

CCC 2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury. He becomes guilty:

- of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor;

- of detraction who, without objectively valid reason, discloses another’s faults and failings to persons who did not know them;

- of calumny who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them.

I think Democrats are acting in the best interests of the mother, whose God-given vocation it is to make decisions about her children.

What I hear being said by others, and what I think is clearly calumny, is that if we give women total legal freedom to act in their God-given vocation as mothers, they will use that freedom to murder their unborn children.

God trusted Mary to bring her Child into the world of her own free will, without coercion from the State. If God trusts women to be mothers, then so do I.

Posted by stilbelieve on Wednesday, Jul 23, 2014 1:55 AM (EDT):

Someone sent the following comment which I was never able to find on the website to see who sent it. I was notified of it in my email messages from NCR, but when I went to the website to see who sent it, I couldn’t find it. Strange. I wanted to thank him/her for their support.

“Don’t try to twist Stillbees words Mark. He believes in the true teachings
of the Church. Taught correctly by the Church. Not his own opinions (Nancy
Pelosi) and not some twisted internet blogger version of the teachings that
has more to do with politics and prejudice than morality and reality.”

Posted by stilbelieve on Wednesday, Jul 23, 2014 1:16 AM (EDT):

Mark, are you on vacation? I’ve asked you important questions about the “seamless garment,” which you are knowledgeable about and a cheerleader for, that us original pro-lifers need answers to in order to better understand it. You haven’t answered them. Obviously, based on their voting records and endorsement with their names, those Catholic Democrats feel they are obeying Catholic teaching. How can that be?

Are they? Or are they sinning?

Posted by Casting Crowns on Wednesday, Jul 23, 2014 12:27 AM (EDT):

@Stuart Kenny: I won’t even bother to address your “I think” convoluted theology since it stands on it own. On the other hand, do bother to actually READ your own posts prior to submitting?—
[“I believe women don’t want to murder their children”] Really? When is the last time you checked with Sen Barbara Boxer, D-CA or viewed video from the 2012 DNC Convention? Have you checked out the Senate floor debate Boxer had with Rick Santorum? “It’s not a child until you take the fetus home from the hospital.” Find it on YouTube along with comments from the esteemed PP icon Patricia Ireland and from NARAL.—
How many Democrats poked fun of Sarah Palin for not aborting her Downs-Syndrome child?—
You are attempting to ascribe a Christian worldview with people who only have a . . . worldview.

Posted by stilbelieve on Tuesday, Jul 22, 2014 11:47 PM (EDT):

@Stuart Kenny: “I think women are more invested in the life of their unborn child than the State…I believe women don’t want to murder their children

The State doesn’t make a woman murder her child. They give her the free will to do so. God doesn’t give her the right to murder her child, he commands her and every one “Thou shalt not murder.” God also said he “lays before us life and death, chose life.” So a woman who submits to having her baby murdered is not violating a state law, but the laws and commandments of God.

You said, “...so they are not seeking the right to murder their children.”
Yes they are, it’s legal for her to ask a doctor to murder her child and legal for a doctor to perform the operation. The state isn’t even involved other than insuring that it is done by a licensed person in a sanitary environment.

Again, I ask you, she didn’t get pregnant by immaculate conception; she may have by artificial insemination; but the overwhelming number of pregnancies involve a male. What obligations does the male have concerning the murder or life of his child? You are silent on that question, which I have asked you several times before. I think an over whelming number of males are quite willing to let her murder their the baby so they don’t have any obligation to it or her.

Posted by Stuart Kenny on Tuesday, Jul 22, 2014 11:02 PM (EDT):

“If you believe that, than how can you argue women have the right to have that baby murdered? Do you think God creates life for it to be aborted?”

I think women are more invested in the life of their unborn child than the State. Mary was more interested in keeping Jesus alive than Herod. I believe women don’t want to murder their children, so they are not seeking the right to murder their children. I believe the State is more likely to kill an unborn child than a woman.

I don’t think God creates life to be aborted. I think that God has such an interest in the saving the life of each child that he entrusts the gift of life to those He values most—women. So my vote gives women the same trust God gives them.

Posted by stilbelieve on Tuesday, Jul 22, 2014 8:12 PM (EDT):

Stuart Kenny - Did I miss your answers to the 2 questions I asked you above at 2:51 PM 7/22/04?

Posted by Casting Crowns on Tuesday, Jul 22, 2014 6:36 PM (EDT):

@Stuart Kenny: [“A pro-life vote is a vote for a candidate who will— . . . unhindered by the State, giving women the sole decision-making power over their pregnancy instead of giving that power to a secular authorities who do not have the good of the unborn as a priority in the way the mother does.”]—
And how many poor and destitute women from the 60’s forward can attest they followed that malarkey, became single moms, became wards of the state, dependent upon the government for housing, food stamps and other taxpayer subsidies so they would feel empowered and liberated? The only way Democrats can hold their base is by keeping people dependent upon the government. Now THAT—is real liberating for women.—
That’s also why morons like Jesse Jackson continue to exist.

Posted by Stuart Kenny on Tuesday, Jul 22, 2014 6:17 PM (EDT):

A pro-life vote is a vote for a candidate who will—

—work for policies which will actually reduce the amount of abortions and create a safety net which renders all abortions unnecessary

—fight against all the things which cause unborn children to die, such as poverty, hunger, homelessness, lack of health care, unjust war, climate change, etc.

—allow women to fulfill their God-given vocations as mothers unhindered by the State, giving women the sole decision-making power over their pregnancy instead of giving that power to a secular authorities who do not have the good of the unborn as a priority in the way the mother does.

Posted by Heather in Toronto on Tuesday, Jul 22, 2014 5:28 PM (EDT):

ANNE, for pity’s sake, we’re on the same team here. I’m not making excuses for anybody.

At the federal level, I vote for the only major party that at least allows its members to make pro-life statements, provided nothing in its platform is morally abhorrent.

Below the federal level, unless I have actually been given reason to believe that a particular candidate is ACTUALLY LIKELY to do anything to affect the current situation either for better or worse, then I consider their personal views on the subject (not that I am likely to even know what those views are) politically irrelevant and vote on the ACTUAL ELECTION ISSUES.

If there are two candidates in the running, neither of whom is going to change the abortion situation for either better or worse, and one of them wants to introduce euthanasia legislation, I’m voting for the other one, not spoiling my ballot because neither of them is ideal.

Posted by ANNE on Tuesday, Jul 22, 2014 4:59 PM (EDT):

Heather, your hypothetical does not exist. Don’t make excuses for pro-abortionists. If you can’t with a debate with something reasonable, don’t debate.
.
” 3. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia.
For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion.
While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment.
There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia. ” - Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope Benedict) - “Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion - General Principles”
_______________________________

Posted by ANNE on Tuesday, Jul 22, 2014 4:47 PM (EDT):

Heather, your type of thinking will never slow INTRINSIC EVILs - which again are: Abortion, Euthanasia, Homosexual Marriage, Cloning, Contraception, and Embryonic Stem Cell Research.
I think if both my candidate choices were this evil, I would write in “St. Joseph” or “Padre Pio.”
Too bad that according to you, Canada has all lousy candidates. Some decent people need to start running for office.
The USA is not there yet, but will be if one must be evil to win.
.
stilbelieve, it is my personal belief that the USCCB/Catholic Charities/CCHD should all stop taking Grants from the Federal Government to clean up the government’s messes, and concentrate on Saving Souls through education - Bible and CCC. We can still help those truly in need to the best of our ability.
The government has the $ to clean up their own messes.
You are right, uncatechised Catholic laity far too often vote for those involved in Intrinsic Evils via wrong values of relativism, secularism, materialism, collectivism.
___________________________

Posted by stilbelieve on Tuesday, Jul 22, 2014 4:40 PM (EDT):

Nor, should I had, are those voting for such candidates.

Posted by stilbelieve on Tuesday, Jul 22, 2014 4:38 PM (EDT):

Heather, that is rarely the case, in fact, I’ve never in 40 years in pro-life spiritual politics found and candidates close to what you presented. What I have found is candidates who will not vote to restrict or end abortion, but will vote to covet workers money to give to the poor in hopes that they won’t need to abort their baby. Such candidates are not following the teachings of Jesus.

Posted by Heather in Toronto on Tuesday, Jul 22, 2014 4:31 PM (EDT):

I can also see “proportional” being considered as such:

Candidate A: I’m going to outlaw abortion and declare war on Denmark because of our ongoing border disputes near the North Pole. Those rotten Vikings!

Candidate B: I’m not going to make any changes to our current (lack of) abortion legislation and I’m not going to declare a totally crazy war on anyone.

Um, yeah, I’m going with candidate B here.

Posted by mrscracker on Tuesday, Jul 22, 2014 4:31 PM (EDT):

Heather in Toronto ,
I’ve read about the situation in Canada.One article stated that it’s the only Western democracy with no laws whatsoever governing abortion.
So, thank you for explaining your location & circumstances.That makes a difference.
Sadly, I think the way things are working out in the US, abortions directly funded by tax dollars are right around the corner. Euthanasia, too.
I have family in Canada who are pleased with the healthcare system, but there’s a downside in the details.

Posted by Heather in Toronto on Tuesday, Jul 22, 2014 4:20 PM (EDT):

To those who took issue with my comment, let me explain further.

Here in Canada, abortion is completely unrestricted. None of the major federal parties have any interest in introducing any legal restrictions on it, and two of the three have had their party leaders come right out in response to the March For Life and say that their parties are officially “pro-choice.” (Therefore I vote federally for the third one which at least allows individual members to hold pro-life views.)

So all things considered there are very few things that a politician could do here to make the situation WORSE. If I think that someone is going to introduce some kind of zoning amendment to put in more “women’s health clinics” then obviously I wouldn’t vote for them. Or if they were going to advocate for bringing in doctors to the province perform late term abortions (technically legal, but there are very few doctors willing to do them). Or whatever. But generally even someone who may have described themselves as “pro-choice” at some point is not likely to be making any changes to the current environment. Nor is anyone who may have described themselves as “pro-life” likely to do anything to rock the boat.

Therefore, unless I have actual reason to believe based on statements or previous political activity that they are actively promoting making abortion more widespread than it already is via zoning amendments or whatever, then a candidate’s personal views on the topic are politically irrelevant, and therefore I will vote based on the issues that actually ARE relevant to the particular election and not based on whether one candidate has ever said anything in public about abortion.

So the way I understand “proportional reason” is that if the “pro-choice” guy isn’t likely to actually make it any worse, and the “pro-life” guy isn’t likely to actually make it any better, then I should choose between them based on the factors that actually WILL make a difference.

Posted by Casting Crowns on Tuesday, Jul 22, 2014 4:10 PM (EDT):

@Stuart Kenny: Now you sound like David Axelrod shilling for Obama with Bob Schieffer on Face the Nation.

Posted by mrscracker on Tuesday, Jul 22, 2014 4:00 PM (EDT):

Stuart,
I’d rather ask where the mother’s power ends.

Posted by stilbelieve on Tuesday, Jul 22, 2014 3:57 PM (EDT):

Anne, my premise is there is no way a “faithful” Catholic can endorse with their name and support with votes the Democratic Party. I believe in doing so they are placing their salvation in jeopardy, and guaranteeing the continued murder of God’s greatest gift - life. I can find no arguments persuasive to the contrary. Jesus teaches that not all “seed” will grow into fulfillment; nor should the weeds be pulled from the wheat fields. Since that is the case, that leaves only one thing to do to help the “seeds” on infertile ground or “weeds” in the wheat fields, and that is to minister to them in ways better for them to understand. The “seamless garment” methodology is a proven failure and should be abandoned because it is too easy for Satan to inject himself into the decision making of too many Catholics. This is illustrated just recently from Fr. Pavone, Priests for Life:

“Catholics make up 26% of the electorate. Sadly, Catholics are MORE LIKELY to vote for the pro-abortion candidates:
1992 - 47% for Bill Clinton, 35% for George Bush I.
1996 - 55% to re-elect Clinton in spite of his pro-abortion policies.
2000 - 52% for pro-abortion Al Gore; 46% for George Bush II.
2004 - 52% for pro-abortion ‘Catholic’ John Kerry; 48% for Bush.
2008 - 53% for Barack Obama, the candidate AB Charles Chaput called ‘the most committed ‘abortion-rights’ presidential candidate of either major party since Roe v. Wade abortion decision in 1973.’
2012 - 49% voted to re-elect Obama even though he escalated the ‘War on the Unborn’ like no President before him.”

A lot a “weeds” in those statistics.

This is not just a war to save God’s greatest gift - life; it is also a war to fight to save the souls of those misguided Catholics already born. The bishops and clergy have a lot to answer for when Jesus returns.

I also am NOT arguing that those Catholics must or should join or vote for the other major party. They should inform themselves on what the other candidates voting records are and decide who they prefer other than the intrinsic evil-promoting Democratic Party. There are various issue organizations that keep track of elected officials votes on issues of importance to those specific organizations that can be very helpful in having confidence that who you may want to vote for is consistent in his stated beliefs.

Posted by Stuart Kenny on Tuesday, Jul 22, 2014 3:47 PM (EDT):

I DO vote to end abortion. I look at the facts—there are fewer abortions under Democratic administrations. There are fewer abortions under Obama. There are fewer abortions where abortion is legal but there is a safety net which encourages the mother to keep her child—see the statistics about Sweden, for instance. There is NO evidence that outlawing abortion ends abortion. I know that my vote for a party which is building a safety net to help the poor will reduce the number of abortions and one day eliminate the need for them. How is your vote working for you?

I also vote to protect the unborn from drone attacks. I vote to protect the unborn from dying from lack of health care. I vote to protect the unborn from dying when their mother miscarries due to the stress of holding down multiple jobs for poor wages. I vote to protect the unborn from dying at the hands of people who shouldn’t own guns. I vote to protect the unborn from dying from extreme weather conditions and famines caused by global warming. I believe we need to remove ALL THREATS to the lives of ALL the unborn.

Also, NO ONE is pretending that gay civil marriage can be compared to sacramental marriage. It’s unfortunate that our society has chosen the same word for two different things, but a marriage between same-sex couples is no more sacramental than a marriage between opposite-sex couples who plan to use contraception and who are open to the marriage one day ending. If opposite-sex couples have access to what is essentially a government contract, then same-sex couples do, too. Pope Francis has said it is necessary for us to consider this possiblity.

If we give the State power to say “Yes” and thus intrude upon a woman’s sacred vocation to motherhood, when do we draw the line? Why do we assume that the State has a vested interest in the life of the unborn? The State is more likely to regulate women’s pregnancies by not allowing children to be born that will be burdens to the State. God gave women, and women alone, the vocation to discern and make decisions about their pregnancy. My vote is to protect a woman’s ability to fulfill her God-given vocation without intrusion from the secular state. If you want to give power of life and death of the unborn to the State, that’s your business, but I don’t think it will work.

Also, we are more than ready to welcome all the unborn. There is no burden to our economy whatsoever—and in the same way, pro-life people need to welcome the born children who wait at our borders. If unborn children are no burden, then neither are the born. How could a pro-life person want millions of the homeless unborn and not want millions of the homeless born?

Posted by Casting Crowns on Tuesday, Jul 22, 2014 3:22 PM (EDT):

@Stuart Kenny: [“NOBODY, NO DEMOCRAT, IS PRO-ABORTION. To say that is to commit the sin of calumny. EVERYBODY, EVERY DEMOCRAT, wants to reduce and ultimately eliminate abortion.”]—
Then why don’t they vote to end it? Especially Catholic Democrats like Durbin, Leahy, Biden, and all the Kennedy’s? And Tom Daschle before he got voted out of the Senate. Why do they keep voting for people like Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan for the Supreme Court? Is this their way of eliminating abortion?

Posted by Casting Crowns on Tuesday, Jul 22, 2014 3:09 PM (EDT):

How does any follower of Christ reconcile voting for someone not only supporting abortion, but abortion up to (and including the 9 month term?). Furthermore, the record is clear Democrats including Obama did not support PRENDA legislation which would “prohibit sex-selection abortion.” Obama even advocates abortion for his own daughters for their “mistake.” —
Politicians who support abortion reflect not only the recesses within their own mind but their soul as well. It tells you what their character is. They might call themselves Protestant or Catholic, but they really have no respect nor fear of God. Is there some reason the USCCB never made this case in 2008 or 2012 to the faithful? This seems like an abdication of their duty to Shepherd.—
Consider (then) State Senator Obama’s opposition to the Illinois Born Alive Infant Protection Act in 2002, which required doctors to provide medical care to babies who survived an abortion procedure and determined that any baby born out of an abortion procedure was to be considered a live person. How does any man (or woman) who fears God oppose this?—
He is the abortion President of the party that supports abortion and has placed two Supreme Court Justices on the bench who also support keeping abortion legal.

Posted by stilbelieve on Tuesday, Jul 22, 2014 2:51 PM (EDT):

@Stuart Kenny: “God entrusted women with that sacred duty.”

If you believe that, than how can you argue women have the right to have that baby murdered? Do you think God creates life for it to be aborted?

Posted by mrscracker on Tuesday, Jul 22, 2014 2:50 PM (EDT):

Stuart,
I saw you make similar remarks in another article that appear conflicted.At what point do you think a mother still has the right to say “No?” And would that end her “sacred duty” or just be another part of her job description?

Posted by ANNE on Tuesday, Jul 22, 2014 2:49 PM (EDT):

stilbelieve, we must look at the public statements and public actions, and in the case of incumbents - their public voting RECORDS - of all candidates regardless of political party.
This is the best we can do.
We can not fool ourselves into making unfounded assumptions just to support our own political affiliation.
.
When there are two pro-abortion candidates we must take into consideration their positions on other INTRINSIC Evils as well.
Abortion; Euthanasia; Homosexual Marriage; Contraception; Cloning; and Embryonic Stem Cell Research.
_____________________________

Posted by stilbelieve on Tuesday, Jul 22, 2014 2:44 PM (EDT):

@Casting Crowns: “Just 4 years earlier, Obama told Rick Warren’s Saddleback church congregation in SoCal that taking a position on gay marriage was ‘above his pay grade.’”

I watched that one-on-one interview by Rick Warren with Democratic Party Presidential nominee, Barack Obama, and was stunned by Obama’s response (”...that’s above my pay grade) to Rick’s question which was not about gay-marriage, but about abortion, and specifically he was asked, “When do you think a baby should be given rights?”

Obama filibustered for about a minute before ending with his amazing answer - “That’s above my pay grade.” I say “amazing” because Obama was being presented as this knowledgeable Harvard graduate of constitutional law who not only taught law at, I think, Northwestern U in Chicago, a very prestigious university, but he was also presented as the Editor of the Harvard Law review. Obama is also a black man. He never heard of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution? From the start, he was a deceiving liar.

But even more disturbing to me was that neither the USCCB, nor the Chairman of the Pro-Life Committee, or a single bishop ever wrote to candidate Obama to ask for clarification of his “...above my pay grade” answer to when he “thought a baby should be given their rights.” Our Shepherds have a responsibility to guide us to spiritual “safety.” In this case, to use their position to get clarification from a person who may be elected President of the United States, on a very important concern to the Shepherds and their flocks, so that we, the sheep, may be better informed voters on this issue. Making it even that much more important that the bishops send Obama such a letter of inquiry is that Obama was a known supporter of infanticide as a state senator in the Illinois Legislature. I can’t think of another time that the bishops could have done a more important thing for the Church and the nation than to have sent that letter. Why did they remain silent?

Posted by Stuart Kenny on Tuesday, Jul 22, 2014 2:42 PM (EDT):

NOBODY, NO DEMOCRAT, IS PRO-ABORTION. To say that is to commit the sin of calumny. EVERYBODY, EVERY DEMOCRAT, wants to reduce and ultimately eliminate abortion. We disagree on what has actually been shown to work to reduce and eliminate abortions.

Women are given the vocation of motherhood; God entrusted women with that sacred duty. Women should be able to make decisions about their pregnancy without interference from the State. I believe that a pro-life vote is one where a woman can fulfill her vocation to make decisions about her unborn child unhindered by the State—no laws should be passed which take away her sacred, God-given right to be the sole and final arbiter of whatever difficult decisions she needs to make about her unborn child.

What would Mary’s “Yes” have meant if she were under compulsion from the State to make that decision? If Mary had lived in South Dakota and was forced to say “Yes,” what would that have meant to our salvation? Why do we only trust the State to say “Yes” for women? I think we must give women the right they have given by God to say “Yes” of their own free will.

Posted by mrscracker on Tuesday, Jul 22, 2014 2:40 PM (EDT):

stilbelieve,
It’s true that Democrats have overwhelmingly voted against pro-life legislation, but I don’t know how many GOP are actually sincere in their beliefs on that issue. My guess is that a number promote themselves as pro-life because they perceive their constituents to be that way. It’s a vote winner. If their constituents changed, they might, too.
(I know there are authentic, decent, GOP politicians, too.)

Posted by ANNE on Tuesday, Jul 22, 2014 2:11 PM (EDT):

For those who are interested for future reference.
100% of the “DEMOCRATIC” SENATE on July 16, 2014, voted in favor of Bill Number: S.2578 (Protect Women’s Health From Corporate Interference Act of 2014)- - - which would allow ABORTION through all 9 months.
.
Here is the official link to see the names of each Senator voting for this heinous/torturous crime against humanity.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=113&session=2&vote=00228
_________________________

Posted by ANNE on Tuesday, Jul 22, 2014 2:02 PM (EDT):

I can not think of any proportional reasons in the USA at this time in history to vote for a pro-abortion politician. - Since we all know the approx. horrific numbers.
Proportionality with other issues would come into effect if both choices of candidates were pro-abortion.
.
As we know, science even backs up the TORTURE of abortion, since they have proven that the unborn feels pain at approx. 9 weeks and 3 days.
(Endowment for Human Development:
The fetus can also grasp an object, move the head forward and back, open and close the jaw, move the tongue, sigh, and stretch.
Nerve receptors in the face, the palms of the hands, and the soles of the feet can sense light touch. In response to a light touch on the sole of the foot, the fetus will bend the hip and knee and may curl the toes.”
http://www.ehd.org/movies.php?mov_id=53 )
____________________________

Posted by stilbelieve on Tuesday, Jul 22, 2014 1:55 PM (EDT):

@Mark: “So, for instance, somebody who votes for a nominally pro-abort pol whose *real* interest seems to the voter to be creating economic conditions in which there is far less pressure on poor women to abort may be, by their lights, what they can to reduce rather than increase abortion.”

Where’s the “proof” to that reasoning in reality? What respected studies have been conducted by pro-life or pro-abortion organizations to support that conclusion? And what about the “proportionality” of Catholic votes going to the stated pro-abortion Democratic Party giving it the electoral power to keep abortion legal, regardless of those Catholics’ reasoning for doing so? Without Catholic votes, the pro-abortion party would not have the power to keep abortion legal, thereby eliminating legal abortions which would save hundreds of thousands of babies, maybe a million, every year. Because of Catholic votes, abortion remains legal, now going on 42 years with 57,000,000 murdered babies in its wake. Don’t you think Catholic boycotting of the pro-abortion, and now pro-homosexual marriage, anti-Constitutional Right of Freedom of Religion, and the direct attack on the Church - Democratic Party, would be a more effective way for Catholics to respond to these intrinsic evils in our country while acting in a more affirming way on their professed beliefs and prayers?

Furthermore, where does Jesus teach in the gospels that his disciples and the sheep go get government politicians to care for those who are poor, rather than the disciples themselves?

Posted by Mark Shea on Tuesday, Jul 22, 2014 1:31 PM (EDT):

Anne: You are arguing with somebody who agrees with you about not being able to find a proportional reason. But the fact remains that, as much as the “kick the impure out” wing of Catholics wish he had, Ratzinger did not write “It is impossible that there are proportional reasons to vote for candidates who support abortion”. What he wrote left open the possibility that, subjectively at least, it is possible for Catholics to vote, in good conscience, for politicians who support abortion, just so long as they are doing so, not to support abortion, but for something the regard as a proportional good. Like it or not, that’s what the man said.

Posted by ANNE on Tuesday, Jul 22, 2014 1:12 PM (EDT):

Any candidate who advocates abortion by public words or public actions, (including the public voting records of incumbents for pro-abortion activities)are not “NOMINALLY pro-abortion”.
.
In the USA - TODAY, there is nothing proportionate to the murder of approx. 1 MILLION innocent babies annually for the convenience of others.
Will there be anything proportionate in the future? - we don’t know.
(Cardinal Ratzinger - Pope Benedict - covered the bases - regarding the absolute intrinsic evils of Abortion and Euthanasia.
.
One can not be “nominally pro-abortion” or “nominally pro-life”. Either we are, or we are not.
The ‘Right to Life’ trumps ‘Social Issues’ in the USA at this time in history.
_________________________________

Posted by Mark Shea on Tuesday, Jul 22, 2014 12:49 PM (EDT):

Anne: You think that and I think that. But lots of people, according to their best lights, *don’t* think that and the reason Ratzinger writes is to address exactly that reality. If Ratzinger had wanted to say “There is no such thing as a proportional reason to vote for a pro-abortion politician” he could have just said that. But he didn’t. Instead, he made clear that there *may* be such a reason and that those who vote for that reason are not to be assumed to be supporting abortion. So, for instance, somebody who votes for a nominally pro-abort pol whose *real* interest seems to the voter to be creating economic conditions in which there is far less pressure on poor women to abort may be, by their lights, what they can to reduce rather than increase abortion. Ratzinger’s letter has in view precisely such specimens of moral calculus.

Posted by mrscracker on Tuesday, Jul 22, 2014 12:41 PM (EDT):

Casting Crowns,
I was thinking of GOP politicians, too. But yes, it’s on both sides. I find it very disheartening.

Posted by Casting Crowns on Tuesday, Jul 22, 2014 12:17 PM (EDT):

@mrscracker: Agreed. How very interesting that Mr. “I have a cell phone and a pen”—his evolution on gay marriage came exactly one week after Mr. Catholic VP Biden’s view also *evolved* In fact, he has evolved to the point we now have regular homosexual dinner celebrations in the White House which rarely make news in the mainstream press.—
Just 4 years earlier, Obama told Rick Warren’s Saddleback church congregation in SoCal that taking a position on gay marriage was “above his pay grade.”

Posted by mrscracker on Tuesday, Jul 22, 2014 12:04 PM (EDT):

Heather,
I’m pretty tired of politics & have become a bit cynical regarding politicians whose moral positions “evolve” according to popularity. But the right to life is primary to all other rights.You have to first be born to enjoy those school lunches & other programs.
As another commenter said, abortion’s intrinsically evil. Like genocide. You can’t vote for someone because they only want to kill a few Jews, Armenians, etc. No amount is acceptable.

Posted by ANNE on Tuesday, Jul 22, 2014 11:24 AM (EDT):

Heather, Pope Benedict (Cardinal Ratzinger) never said “appropriate reason”.
He said “proportionate reason”.
There is nothing proportionate in the USA today to the murder of approx. 1 MILLION innocent humans each year through abortion for the convenience of others.
.
Pope Benedict very clearly addressed ABORTION and EUTHANASIA in regard to voting responsibilities.
Please read what he wrote in entirety.
“WORTHINESS to RECIEVE HOLY COMMUNION - General Principles” - http://www.priestsforlife.org/magisterium/bishops/04-07ratzingerommunion.htm
.
There are INTRINSIC EVILS that can never be supported: Abortion, Euthanasia, Homosexual Marriage, Contraception, Cloning and Embryonic Stem Cell Research.
Social programs NEVER trump INTRINSIC Evils in the USA.
__________________________

Posted by Heather on Tuesday, Jul 22, 2014 10:51 AM (EDT):

Some of the people talking about voting are talking completely past each other. One side says “there are times when you can legitimately vote for someone even if they hold a pro-abortion position if you are voting for them for an appropriate reason.” The other says “Nuh-uh! There’s no possible proportionate reason to vote for someone because they are pro-abortion!”

You’re not talking about the same thing. Voting for someone EVEN THOUGH they support abortion is not the same thing as voting for someone BECAUSE they support abortion. Voting for someone campaigning on wanting to open more “women’s health clinics” would be wrong no matter what the rest of their platform was. That’s not the same as voting for someone because you think they will do a better job of helping people than the other guy who says they are “pro-life” but wants to, I don’t know, cut school lunch programs, bulldoze all the affordable housing in favor of luxury condos, and cancel worker’s compensation benefits for people injured on the job, especially if the first person is unlikely to be in a position to make the abortion situation any worse than it currently is.

By the way, no, abortion is not in fact singled out as the only sin that carries automatic excommunication. A number of the others can’t be committed by laypeople (such as performing unauthorized episcopal ordinations and soliciting one’s penitent for sex), but others can (physically attacking the Pope, desecrating the Eucharist, violating the seal of the confessional which laypeople can do if they overhear something, among other things).

Posted by Casting Crowns on Sunday, Jul 20, 2014 9:51 PM (EDT):

@Mark: A clarification please. You quoted Cardinal Ratzinger’s statement [“When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favor of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.”]
-
I see that a very shallow defense of allowing Catholics “in good conscience” to support office holders (Catholic or not) who support abortion. Further, what does that rationale tell us about polling which says Catholics supporting Obama in 2008 was 54% and 53% in 2012? Not only does Obama support abortion as a choice in case his own daughter (makes a “mistake”)—his words, but he also has supports partial-birth abortion. Unbelievably, Obama is even to the left of Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA). She, of course, of the famous US Senate debate with then Sen Rick Santorum, Boxer then said: “The fetus is not a child until it is taken home from the hospital.”

Posted by stilbelieve on Friday, Jul 18, 2014 9:57 PM (EDT):

Mark, why don’t you just focus on what I say. What are the issues, and the sins associated with them, that were put in the Seamless Garment, to go along with the existing intrinsic evil issues of pro-life?

And based on what the CA Correction Institution professionals, and federal prosecutors, said in that article entitled “Murder from the inside out,” what is your opinion of the CA bishops’ decision to continue to work to end capital punishment in CA?

Posted by stilbelieve on Friday, Jul 18, 2014 9:45 PM (EDT):

Life is a test.

Posted by mrscracker on Thursday, Jul 17, 2014 11:40 AM (EDT):

I think folks need to stop listening to politics,interest groups & the media they influence & start thinking like Catholics.
If you do, you’ll probably make someone in every political segment uncomfortable.

Posted by TexasKnight on Thursday, Jul 17, 2014 11:03 AM (EDT):

The lame stream media actually reported some disturbing news. Parents giving their children contraceptives before they run the gauntlet through Mexico. May God have mercy on those who have encouraged this.
.
http://washington.cbslocal.com/2014/07/17/homeland-secretary-parents-give-immigrant-children-birth-control-in-case-theyre-raped-along-the-way/

Posted by Mark Shea on Wednesday, Jul 16, 2014 7:26 PM (EDT):

“I do observe all of the Church teachings if they are correct.”

Welcome to Protestantism, Stillbelieve. You and Nancy Pelosi should be very happy together. She says *exactly* the same thing.

Posted by Stilbelieve on Wednesday, Jul 16, 2014 6:54 PM (EDT):

Mark, you said, “I think we should observe *all* that the Church teaches, not just the bits you like.”

I do observe all of the Church teachings if they are correct. One of them that is not correct concerns capital punishment. Eliminating that is not for the “common good.” That is based on a $5 million dollar, 3-year undercover investigation of the newest high tech maximum security prison in CA at Pelican Bay by federal prosecutors, state correction officials, state and local police. It was called Operation Black Widow and resulted in a 25 count indictment of 12 men and 1 woman held in solitary confinement, one to a cell,with no contact with other prisoners, let out only 1 hour a day to exercise alone, with all articles thoroughly searched going in and coming out of their glass wall cell with its own non-metal toilet. The charges? Murder, robbery, drug running, assaults and extortion - all carried on outside the prison walls. “The Corrections Department says there’s little it can do to stop the killings, ordered by inmates who have nothing to lose and nothing but time” (on their hands). (Orange County Register, Sunday April 29, 2001 headline - “Murder from the inside out.”)

The CA Catholic Conference was in support of a ballot proposition a couple years ago to end Capital Punishment in the state. I sent a copy of this article to my diocese’s Pro-life, Peace and Justice Office whose director was attending a conference in a couple days in Sacramento to discuss the status of the anti-capital punishment proposition. Upon her return, I called her and she said she showed the article to the attending bishops and other diocese directors, and their decision was to ignore it and continue on supporting the proposition. “Federal prosecutors say…hundreds of murders have been orchestrated from inside maximum-security prisons”(same article). Nobody talked about crime dissuasion factors capital punishment provides. How can U.S. bishops be working to end CP with the existence of facts like these? Their position is based on an assumption Pope John Paul II made concerning CP in highly developed nations. He had no evidence or facts to support his assumption, and nobody in the Church seems to have done any research to see if it can be substantiated. That destroys the bishops’ credibility, fighting against something that is not sinful in any capacity for anybody involved with it; something that was never sinful and never will be. The only reason the bishops are pushing to end of CP is to have a “show piece” to defend their opposition to abortion, totally ignoring any effort to obtain the facts from the professionals. That is the mindset of Catholic Democrat clergy and laity on the front-lines of pastoral work who were not “all-in” on pro-life movement in the early days because that would have required them to have to leave the pro-abortion Democratic Party. They weren’t willing to do that, arguing they were “pro-life,” too, for all these other reasons besides abortion, like “capital punishment to foreign policy intelligent operations” which ultimately resulted in the “Seamless Garment.” What sins are involved in all the other seamless garment concerns besides the original pro-life intrinsic evils ones?

Posted by JeffB on Wednesday, Jul 16, 2014 5:35 PM (EDT):

Illegal immigrants were told that all they needed to do was show up. They were not fleeing persecution in their home country.
*
copy-n-paste: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/07/16/misperceptions-about-us-immigration-policy-behind-surge-illegal-children-report/
*
The lame stream media will hide this (of course).

Posted by JeffB on Wednesday, Jul 16, 2014 4:14 PM (EDT):

You are spot on ANNE. In addition, the rape, sex slavery and murder of children is definitely happening on the road to America. What are these parents thinking? Or are these children mostly orphans / political pawns of the socialists? We will probably never know. Our government will not allow reporters to interview the illegal immigrants. We do know that Mexico controls the narrow route on their Southern border from Central America. Why all the sudden are they allowing / facilitating this massive influx of illegal immigrants?

So who is responsible for the rape, sex slavery and murder of children that is definitely happening on the road to America? Those that are promoting more of the same for their expected political gain. Those that fail to chastise a government that orchestrated this disaster. May God have mercy on them.

I find it very interesting that Mark has twisted these truths by proclaiming that those who wants to send the illegal immigrants back home are guilty of the exact crimes that our leaders have committed against the marginalized and the poor (i.e., the rape, sex slavery and murder of women & children resulting from the failure to protect our borders and enforce the existing immigration laws). The Word of God says, “Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil, who change darkness into light, and light into darkness, who change bitter into sweet, and sweet into bitter!”

And all you liberals / socialists out there that will try to say that the USA needs more just immigration laws, let me remind you that the party of death, immorality and theft recently had the numbers for 2 years to pass any law they wanted to pass. Guess what! They chose to keep illegal immigration as a political tool to sway the useful idiots at the expense of the illegal immigrants who run the gauntly under fear of death, rape and sex slavery. How’s that for hope and change. Jesus says, “This is the time of fulfillment. The kingdom of God is at hand. Repent, and believe in the gospel.”

Posted by Stilbelieve on Wednesday, Jul 16, 2014 12:29 PM (EDT):

Mark - “Precisely the irony of this conversation is that the only people who are talking as though abortion and the rest of the Church’s teaching are in competition with one another are the opponents of the Seamless Garment.”

The Seamless Garment was created in opposition to the “right wing conservatives who were becoming its (pro-life) dominant sponsors.” That Pro-life, as the bishops created it 10 years before the seamless garment, was: anti- abortion and passage of a RTL Constitutional Amendment. Our fruits were the election results of defeating incumbent pro-abortion legislatures and replacing them with pro-life legislators. The 1980 election of President Reagan also resulted in the Republicans winning control of the U.S. Senate, the first time in decades. A majority of Catholics gave their voting support to the GOP, and they were given a name - “Reagan Democrats. The Republican Party had adopted a pro-life plank in their party platform a few years before, and that scared the Hell out of the Democrat establishment after the Republican “landslide” in the 1980 election. That resulted in the Democrat party leaders and big money guys going on a warpath to try and stop further Republican gains. That’s when Cardinal Bernardin really started to work on finding the compromises, which his leadership was known for, that would enable Catholics to remain in and support their beloved Democratic Party. Thus the “Seamless Garment” that enabled Catholic Democrats to smugly claim, “their pro-life doesn’t end at birth!” So it was Cardinal Bernardin and the U.S. bishops who adopted his plan that created a “cafeteria” for Catholic Democrat voters to select from, not us original and true pro-lifers. The proof is in the continued high voter registrations in the Democratic Party of not only Catholic laity, but clergy as well; the clergy who were not going along with the bishops’ original pro-life movement. But Protestant Christian conservatives were increasing their presence in the pro-life movement and that is why Bernardin’s Seamless Garment would put an end to that because of the Democrat liberal issues he named being pro-life too.

Posted by mrscracker on Wednesday, Jul 16, 2014 12:05 PM (EDT):

This is an interesting article that sheds some light on the current immigration controversy:

“The flood of unaccompanied children from Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala is partly America’s own doing. “

Mark, you state “The Seamless Garment is basically common sense Catholic Social Teaching. It puts the human person at the center of things, instead of things such as possessions and ideologies at the center of the human person.”

You are, of course exactly right. It puts the human at the center of things. That is why it is wrong.

Our faith requires that we put God at the center, not man.
See CCC 2114.

This basic false assumption of Bernardin makes all that follows from his position false.

However, this “man at the center” idea has not died, but is still promoted even by people like Pope Francis who recently said: “When a man loses his humanity he becomes as a “piece of scrap” that one may discard when no longer useful. Why? Because the man is not the center. And when the man is not in the center, there is another thing in the middle and the man is at the service of this other thing. The idea then is to rescue man, in the sense of returning him to the center: to the center of society, the center of thoughts, the focus of reflection. Place man once more at the center.”

(June 13 address at the Vatican seminar on the theme “The Global Common Good: Towards a more inclusive economy,”

It will take a long time for the Church to recover from Bernardin.

Posted by ANNE on Wednesday, Jul 16, 2014 11:27 AM (EDT):

Mark Shea your statement in your post: “I do have something against prolife people working to contribute to the rape, sex slavery and death of children.”
.
This is extreme and false. Prolife people can not believe in the things you have accused them of - supporting rape, sex slavery, death of children.
.
You may have some who claim to pro-life but they are not if they support these things.
.
Further your quote of these terrible things about these children within their own Countries has never been proven and until it is, is mere emotional rhetoric.
.
Please provide an official government link to your assertions. Until then they are just political fiction.
_______________________

Posted by mrscracker on Wednesday, Jul 16, 2014 9:54 AM (EDT):

I’m looking at some of the comments about recent immigration of Hispanic minors & children.
This whole thing has become a political circus.Yes, we need immigration because our current birth rate’s below replacement level.America is a nation of immigrants.I don’t care what color or ethnicity new immigrants are as long as they’re decent & hard working.
Sure, the people protesting/yelling at the Hispanic arrivals are idiots for the most part.And I’d guess many are racially driven- as is much of the anti-immigrant movement.But, on the other side, do we really want to play into the hands of “coyotes” that leave children to die in the desert.Or encourage more kids to fall off trains, lose limbs, be robbed/raped on the journey? As difficult as conditions may be in Central America, I think the trip here can be deadlier.How many kids are lost before they even reach the US border?
If these were white kids hopping trains from Canada & dieing/losing limbs at the same rate Hispanic kids do, would we be taking the same approach?
And seriously, who buys the drugs the cartels smuggle & use kids/gangs to do their dirty work? We do.
I’d really like to see some policy enacted that shows common sense, Christian charity, & does not try to utilize these kids for political gain- on either side.

Posted by ANNE on Wednesday, Jul 16, 2014 8:06 AM (EDT):

That being said in my post of Wednesday, Jul 16, 2014 7:48 AM

It is very important to state that all Catholics are required to adhere to the Doctrine of the Faith which is contained in the “Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition” in ENTIRETY.
“This catechism is conceived as an organic presentation of the Catholic faith in its entirety. It should be seen therefore as a unified whole.” (CCC pg 11)
We can not pick and choose.
There is no such thing as a “cafeteria catholic”. Just Faithful Catholics, Catholic heretics & Catholic schismatics. (See CCC 2089 for Church definitions).
.
All Church teaching is covered accurately, including the evils as well as social teachings in the CCC.
.
We must use common sense when we VOTE - which all Catholic citizens are required to do. (CCC 2240).
Never support a politician who supports intrinsic evils. Intrinsic evils are not debatable or subject to prudential judgment.
INTRINSIC EVILS: Abortion; Euthanasia; Contraception; Homo-sexual marriage; Cloning; Embryonic Stem Cell Research.
.
When due to all candidates supporting some intrinsic evils, always vote for the candidate who is the lessor of the evils at Federal, State and local levels.
Again review Party Platforms (goals) as well.
.
Politicians appoint people of like mind to important administrative positions, as well as various very important Court appointments.
___________________________

Posted by ANNE on Wednesday, Jul 16, 2014 7:48 AM (EDT):

Court Documents were released / published recently that Cardinal Joseph Bernardin was involved in aiding and abetting Priest child abusers.
His moral compass was not good.
http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2014/01/21/abuse-files-for-30-chicago-priests-to-be-made-public/
Article has link to Diocese Documents.
.
In addition Bernardin’s allowing ineligible Bishops (those not present and retired) to vote at the US Conference of Bishops on the 3rd vote, is why we do not all receive the Lord on the tongue at the Ordinary Form of the Mass. He sent this illegal vote to the Vatican to obtain the indult for receiving the Eucharist in the hand.
Again, this points to Bernardin’s character, and method of winning at all costs.
.
It would be best if he was not used as an argument for Catholic morals or ethics.

Posted by ANNE on Wednesday, Jul 16, 2014 7:20 AM (EDT):

QUOTE ” 3. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia.
For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion.
...There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.” UNQUOTE
- Cardinal Ratzinger, (Pope Benedict)“Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion - General Principles”.
.
There is nothing proportionate in the USA today to the MURDER of approx. 1 MILLION Innocent unborn babies each year.

Posted by Mark Shea on Wednesday, Jul 16, 2014 4:38 AM (EDT):

Stillbelieve: Your invocation of guilt by association fallacy and “abuse negates the right use” fallacy notwithstanding, the fact remains that the Seamless Garment, properly understood, is simply an affirmation of the Church’s whole social teaching, while you are insisting on Cafeteria Catholicism. In that, it is you who are behaving like Obama. Enjoy the company you keep. I think we should observe *all* that the Church teaches, not just the bits you like.

Posted by Stilbelieve on Wednesday, Jul 16, 2014 3:02 AM (EDT):

I see you chose to remain silent to my legitimate questions challenging your advocacy of the spiritual vacant, politically motivated “Seamless Garment.” Man up, Mark, and defend yourself. You know who really, really admired Cardinal Bernardin and really appreciates you and Catholics like you - President Barack Obama. You know why - because of his and your social justice position. You are in good company. Hope you are proud of yourself. Interesting that Obama picks and choices what parts of the “Seamless Garment” he prefers, just like millions of other Catholic Democrats do.

Posted by Mark Shea on Wednesday, Jul 16, 2014 2:37 AM (EDT):

Zach: There’s nothing wrong with doing the best work possible in any area of Catholic teaching so long as in doing so, one does not ignore of denigrate the rest of Catholic teaching. Precisely the irony of this conversation is that the only people who are talking as though abortion and the rest of the Church’s teaching are in competition with one another are the opponents of the Seamless Garment.

Posted by Zach on Wednesday, Jul 16, 2014 2:28 AM (EDT):

Here’s the problem - the vast majority of the people who proclaim the “seamless garment” rhetorically support the so-called “parody” far more than actual Church teaching. For example, even a minor difference over (say) minimum wage or spending on some govt program or other are “procecuted” with at least as much vigor as abortion.
I have to conclude that seamless garment rhetoric is at best a well-intentioned failure

Posted by TexasKnight on Wednesday, Jul 16, 2014 1:54 AM (EDT):

Then they are pretenders. You should not refer to them as pro-life.

Posted by Mark Shea on Wednesday, Jul 16, 2014 1:09 AM (EDT):

Texas: The primary demographic of the Tea Party militia types showing up at the border, as well as the countless people filling my FB page with dire warnings about the disease-laden, terrifying “invaders” coming across the border has been white, Christian, “prolife” and “conservative”. Their main claim has been that these terrified children are part of a sinister plot by Obama to make white, Christian, prolife conservatives look bad by their heartless response. The sole recommendation they have is to send these terrified kids back to where they came from (meaning back to rape, sex slavery, and death). Both the pope and Cdl. Dolan have told these nativists that they are in the wrong. Almost all my readership is conservative, “prolife” and Christian. A large percentage of their commentary is firmly on the side of abandoning these children to their fate. And those of us who think that inhuman are routinely denounced as “liberals”.

So: I have nothing at all against prolife people being active in prolife ministry. I do have something against prolife people working to contribute to the rape, sex slavery and death of children.

Posted by TexasKnight on Wednesday, Jul 16, 2014 12:43 AM (EDT):

Mark, please stop attacking faithful Catholics that are active in the pro-life ministry. I know of no one who would do what you suggest.

“On the contrary, the notion that it is somehow impossible to uphold the Church’s teaching on abortion and all other life issues at the same time,...”
Well, it is impossible under the current political platforms. Neither offers it all. But, one surely offers the devil.

“... or (as the ugly mobs screaming at children at the border are doing) that one must spend one’s energy advocating the polar opposite of the Church’s teaching on war or refugees in order to be truly “prolife””
I haven’t heard any of those people call themselves pro-life. Only you. So please stop.

Posted by Stilbelieve on Wednesday, Jul 16, 2014 12:39 AM (EDT):

“Tom: We have two partly pro-death parties and two parties that sometimes pursue certain ends that the Church approves.”

Mark, I resent your insulting accusation above. I was in the pro-death party most of my earlier life. I left that party because of their total support for abortion. Abortion only exist today because of the millions of other church-going Catholics that wouldn’t leave their beloved Democratic Party from which they get their self identity and feeling of morally superior to others, as you are demonstrating to me every time I engage you on this phony spiritual issue of the “Seamless Garment.” Read my post to you containing more of what was exposed in Bernardin’s friend’s biography of him. I registered into the Republican Party when they showed the courage, conviction and principles of good decent people working to bring about good in this country. There were a lot of big money people who didn’t want the party to take on the social ethical issue of abortion. We were fighting them back then and we are still fighting them now. Your remarks are insulting to those of us who know what the Democratic Party is all about, and the Republican Party. Bishops have compared the two party platforms and have not come up with anything in the Republican platform that justifies your insults. But they had lots of negative things to say about the Democratic Party platform. Their are even some high level clergyman who are warning Catholics about the gravity of their being in the Democratic Party, and how they could lose their salvation remaining in it regardless of their personal position on the intrinsic evils that party promotes. If it is a serious sin for a Catholic to belong to an organization like the KKK or the Nazi Party, as the Catholic Catechism teaching says it is, then how could belonging to an organization responsible for the promotion of the continued murder of unborn babies exceeding 57,000,000 not be a serious sin?

Posted by JeffB on Wednesday, Jul 16, 2014 12:26 AM (EDT):

“I agree that I cannot find any proportional reason to vote for a pro-abort for any position in which their views would affect public policy relevant to the question of abortion.” Awesome! Thanks be to God.

Posted by JeffB on Wednesday, Jul 16, 2014 12:17 AM (EDT):

“Isolating one aspect of Catholic teaching and using it as a weapon to attack all the rest seems to inevitably lead to the point where the heresy mutates into its opposite.”

Wow! You are so wrong here. First of all, the Church, Herself isolates abortion. It is the only sin listed in the CCC that warrants automatic excommunication. It is a main topic in many encyclicals. So if somebody reiterates Church teaching, they are mutating heresy? Is it divisive to call out heretics for their heresies? Catholics that are in communion with His Church are trying to point out the grave sins being committed by many who receive the Holy Eucharist on Sundays. If someone is a heretic, they are endanger of eternal damnation. It is out of love that we speak to warn them of their treacherous ways.

Today, His Church is infested with a great heresy know as moral relativism. Many specific heresies fall under this umbrella:
1) If you support the removal of God from our public life and His replacement by an ever increasing centralized government, then you are a heretic.
2) If you support a woman’s right to choose death for her unborn child, then you are a heretic.
3) If you support the use of contraception in any way to frustrate the marital act, then you are a heretic.
4) If you support no-fault divorce laws, then you are a heretic.
5) If you support abstinence + sex education in our public schools, then you are a heretic.
6) If you support attempts to redefine marriage, then you are a heretic.
7) If you support the erosion of religious freedom and freedom of conscience, then you are a heretic.
8) If you support free access or access of any kind to pornography, then you are a heretic.
9) If you support IVF, embryonic stem cell research or any other form of fetal exploitation, then you are a heretic.

“Woe to you if you do not succeed in defending Life.” Pope John Paul II, 1993
“More souls go to hell for sins of the flesh than for any other reason.” Our Lady of Fatima, 1917

Posted by Mark Shea on Wednesday, Jul 16, 2014 12:17 AM (EDT):

JeffB: On the contrary, the notion that it is somehow impossible to uphold the Church’s teaching on abortion and all other life issues at the same time, or (as the ugly mobs screaming at children at the border are doing) that one must spend one’s energy advocating the polar opposite of the Church’s teaching on war or refugees in order to be truly “prolife” has done nothing but hurt and harm the Church’s prolife witness by making it transparently obvious that Catholics who do so are ransacking the Faith for the bits they like and treating the rest of the Church’s teaching with contempt out of a higher loyalty to party.

Posted by JeffB on Wednesday, Jul 16, 2014 12:14 AM (EDT):

“However, the habit many Catholics have of arguing to ignore all other life issue out of a kind of idolatry of being anti-abortion…”

People who stand up for life are not idolaters. They see Christ in the desperate mother and the baby hidden in her womb. For you to say such a thing is rather, hateful?

“… is currently resulting in the appalling spectacle of “prolife” protesters screaming to send defenseless children back to rape, sex slavery and murder in Central America since they aren’t as important as unborn children and they might vote for Democrats when they grow up.”

Where did you get the erroneous idea that those protesters are pro-life? Again, for you to say such a thing is rather, hateful? Is this a pattern?

Posted by JeffB on Tuesday, Jul 15, 2014 11:54 PM (EDT):

“I’m simply saying that Ratzinger makes clear that we cannot sit in judgment of those who, in good conscience, vote for a proabort not in order to support abortion, but for some reason they judge to be proportional.”

Wrong again. He said no such thing about sitting in judgment. He did say it had to be proportionate. Not your idea of proportionate. Not mine. What the Church says. I showed you what a few holy bishops stood up and said. They are the teachers. You cannot vote for a pro-abort in the USA at this time because there are no proportionate reasons to justify it.

“A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.” Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, July 2004

Posted by Stilbelieve on Tuesday, Jul 15, 2014 11:53 PM (EDT):

And, Mark, if the “Seamless Garment” was so spiritually motivated by Cardinal Bernardin and adopted by the bishops, why did the author tip their hand about why the “Seamless Garment” was needed? This was 10 years after Row v Wade and the bishops’ pro-life movement to get a RTL Constitutional Amendment began. The author reveled that Bernardin thought their, the bishops, efforts were going to fail; “founder” is the word he used, because the priest were not enthusiastic about pro-life movement, nor were “others who served in the front ranks of pastoral work.” They had to get something else to get the priest and “others” involved. He revealed what the problem was with Catholic priest and “others” in writing, “...large numbers of people who, although pro-life in their convictions, were convinced that the problem had to be placed in a richer contest of moral concerns. Such people felt, for example, that you could not be against abortion without being against activities, some of them government sponsored, that endangered innocent civilians in the cause of destabilizing Central American governments.”

Now, I was very, very active in the pro-life movement back then, and I never, never, never heard that “complaint” from anybody who was “pro-life in their convictions.” I had helped get two pro-life Congressmen elected replacing two pro-aborts with Ds behind their names, and two state legislators, both of whom were pro-life and Republicans, one of whom hired me to work in his district office. The ONLY place that a conversation described above, volunteered by the author, could have taking place was within groups of Catholics who were Democrats. Question, Mark, what did opposition against the Reagan foreign policy in Nicaragua have to do with getting a RTL Constitutional Amendment passed by Congress? The author offered more insight into the background leading to the creation of the “Seamless Garment.” He wrote, “A more cohesive and consistent position that recognized a spectrum of pro-life issues, ranging from peace through capital punishment, would energize the priests, clergy, the laypeople in direct contact with the Catholic population in a positive way.”

Then he continued. “Not only would this move gain greater support from Catholics and others but it would keep the pro-life movement from falling completely under the control of the right wing conservatives who were becoming its dominant sponsors.” Mark, I asked you once before if you thought God would care if the pro-life movement “fell completely under control of right wing conservatives.” You never answered. Your bishops, Mark, injected politics into the pro-life movement - because Catholic Democrats LOVED being DEMOCRATS more than God and His gift of life.

Show me the fruits of the bishops’ Catholic “Seamless Garment,” Mark, some 30 years after its inception. I know what the fruits were in the real pro-life movement some ten years after Roe v Wade. And I can show you the rot that has come into our lives since the inception of the “Seamless Garment, keeping the clergy from really proclaiming the truth of God, and the laity from having to make a decision to remain being Democrats, or start to become Catholics.

Posted by Tom C. on Tuesday, Jul 15, 2014 11:50 PM (EDT):

Mark,

You cede too much ground to the likes of JeffB. He is making an emotional argument that is not backed up by the FACTS on the ground. The truth is that if we actually care about the fate of the unborn(as all Catholics should), we should not be blind to the FACT that the place with the highest abortion rate is South America where abortion is generally illegal. The place with the lowest abortion rate is Western Europe where abortion is generally legal. Shouldn’t the actual numbers of abortion, you know, matter?

Posted by ANNE on Tuesday, Jul 15, 2014 11:41 PM (EDT):

Since there are approx., 1 MILLION ABORTIONS (murders of the most innocent) each year in the USA, there is nothing proportionate regarding voting.
(Referencing “Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion - General Principles).
.
When there are 2 pro-abortion politicians, we must vote for the lessor of the evils.
We must consider their public statements, public actions,
and voting records in the case of incumbents.
.
One can also look at both Parties National Platforms to see each Party’s GOALS - looking for INTRINSIC EVILS.
State Party Platforms can also be found on the internet for State elections.
.
INTRINSIC EVILS can never be approved and include:
The Mortal Sins of: Abortion, Euthanasia, Same-sex marriage, Contraception, Cloning, and Embryonic Stem Cell Research.
Those politicians who support violating our Freedom of Religion should also be a strong no vote.
.
Remember that the next President and those elected on the Federal level next time will probably be able to appoint the next Supreme Court Justice.
_____________________________

Posted by JeffB on Tuesday, Jul 15, 2014 11:35 PM (EDT):

“Also, the simplistic notion that the GOP is God’s party…” Nobody said they were God’s party. I will say that they are not the Devil’s party.

“... and anybody who votes Democrat is certainly guilty of mortal sin (in the teeth of what Ratzinger explicitly says to the contrary) is a fine specimen of how the Church’s teaching get co-opted by false culture war ideologies.” Really? It is your lack of understanding with regard to the meaning of proportionate that is the issue here. Also, abortion is not a culture war. It is a tool of the enemy straight from the pit. 57 million human beings ripped unto death from their mother’s womb. And know that Jesus has watched each and every one.

Posted by Mark Shea on Tuesday, Jul 15, 2014 11:28 PM (EDT):

JeffB: I agree that I cannot find any proportional reason to vote for a pro-abort for any position in which their views would affect public policy relevant to the question of abortion. I said as much above. So I don’t see why you think I am disagreeing with you. I’m simply saying that Ratzinger makes clear that we cannot sit in judgment of those who, in good conscience, vote for a proabort not in order to support abortion, but for some reason they judge to be proportional.

However, the habit many Catholics have of arguing to ignore all other life issue out of a kind of idolatry of being anti-abortion is currently resulting in the appalling spectacle of “prolife” protesters screaming to send defenseless children back to rape, sex slavery and murder in Central America since they aren’t as important as unborn children and they might vote for Democrats when they grow up. Isolating one aspect of Catholic teaching and using it as a weapon to attack all the rest seems to inevitably lead to the point where the heresy mutates into its opposite.

Posted by JeffB on Tuesday, Jul 15, 2014 11:26 PM (EDT):

“Your presumption that one aspect of the Church’s teaching is opposed to other aspects of the Church’s teaching is, ironically, classic Protestant either/or thinking.”

Wrong again! I made no such presumption. It is a matter of proportion - a totally Catholic thought. Reading comprehension is the key.

Posted by JeffB on Tuesday, Jul 15, 2014 11:20 PM (EDT):

“You seem to be under the impression that I don’t think we need to fight abortion, protect the family and preserve religious liberty.”

Wrong! I am under the impresion that you think it is important to fight for these things and fight against war and the death penalty at the same time. And this line of thinking is absolutely wrong (and a losing strategy).

Posted by JeffB on Tuesday, Jul 15, 2014 11:09 PM (EDT):

Well Mark, you seemingly cannot and or refuse to comprehend what I am telling you. It is real simple. There are no proportionate reasons to vote for a pro-abort. We have lost more than 57 million Americans to abortion. We lost more Americans last year to abortion that we did in all our wars combined. We lose more American’s to abortion every single day than we did on 9/11. You cannot compare war and the death penalty to abortion. They are very far from being proportionate. Then there’s all the other intrinsic evils. Removing God from public life, pushing contraception and attacking marriage are the worst of them. Then there is the squandered $17T on fallacious efforts to reduce poverty. There is nothing useful about the party of death, immorality and theft. To say otherwise requires amazing mental gymnastics. Would you stop to fix a leak (death penalty) while your house is on fire (abortion)? Yet that is what café catholics do when they vote for the party of death, immorality and theft. Pray for their conversion.

Posted by ANNE on Tuesday, Jul 15, 2014 11:08 PM (EDT):

“WORTHINESS to RECEIVE HOLY COMMUNION - General Principles” by Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope Benedict) 2004 put the RIGHT to LIFE issues of Abortion and Euthanasia ahead of social issues, including not being able to receive Holy Communion - regarding VOTING practices.
http://www.priestsforlife.org/magisterium/bishops/04-07ratzingerommunion.htm
.
In addition the “Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition” (1997)is very strong regarding the absolute evil of Abortion and Euthanasia.
.
You are right that we must accept all the teachings of the Church as stated in the CCC.
This does not only include those we hear about all the time, but also Commutative Justice (#2411) “without which no other form of justice is possible”; Subsidiarity (#1883, 1885, 1894, 2209), plus many more.
Anyone who has not read the Bible and the CCC completely should do so, for well balanced accuracy.
__________________________

Posted by ANNE on Tuesday, Jul 15, 2014 10:46 PM (EDT):

Mark Shea, it is probably an honest mistake, but the link you provided is NOT Cardinal Bernardin’s ‘Seamless Garment Theory’.
.
His ‘Seamless Garment Theory’ was given at FORDHAM University, on Dec. 6, 1983.
http://www.priestsforlife.org/magisterium/bernardingannon.html
.
The speech at St. LOUIS University, on March 11, 1984 was a correction because his “Seamless Garment Theory” was so bad that he had to change/fix it due to all the complaints.
.
In his actual ‘Seamless Garment Theory’ under part II, paragraph 15, Bernardin stated: Those who defend the right to life of the weakest among us must be equally visible in support of….. the undocumented immigrant and the unemployed worker…..Such a quality of life posture translates into specific political and economic positions on tax policy, employment generation, welfare policy, nutrition and feeding programs, and health care.”
.
Needless to say equating tax policy, employment, generation, welfare policy etc. with the Right to Life itself is very objectionable, and violates Church teaching.
It gave many pro-abortion Democrats cover and the ability to gain Catholic votes.
As would be expected, the later St. Louis re-statement didn’t get much traction in the secular press or in political circles.
_______________________

Posted by Tom C. on Tuesday, Jul 15, 2014 10:45 PM (EDT):

Mark,

I have great sympathy for your position. Most of your readers are political conservatives/tea partiers/republicans. Reading the combox comments on your posts I get a real sense of the personal sacrifice you make when you speak truth to the right wing idiots on guns, immigration, the economy and the like. Thankfully, you are right in line with this Pope and I hope that provides you solace. God Bless you and your work.

The Dems are useful for some things, conservatives for others, and each party (though not all members of those parties) seriously evil dogmas that stand in the way of Catholic teaching that have to be opposed. Politics is like trying to knit with tire irons. Simple-minded declarations that read 50% of Americans out the country or the Church are a foolish waste of time. Some members of each party are there, not because they hold the evil dogmas, but because they want to reform their party. I can respect that.

Posted by Mark Shea on Tuesday, Jul 15, 2014 10:29 PM (EDT):

Stillbelieve: I wouldn’t know since I have not read the book. But lots of people (including Bill Donohue) speak of “battling for the soul of the Church”. So what?

The prolife teaching of the Church, as you are abundantly demonstrating cuts across party lines all the time.

Posted by Stilbelieve on Tuesday, Jul 15, 2014 10:28 PM (EDT):

“I suggest ditching party for the Church’s teaching.”

Mark, are you recommending that Catholics “ditch” the Democratic Party?

That is all I am doing. I’m not interested in their joining any other party, just get out of the pro-abortion party to save, first of all, their souls, and secondly the unborn. For when Catholics start living their faith and obey God’s commandments, there is no way they would want to be associated with that party. If you don’t care about their salvation, perhaps you should reconsider what good you are doing for them as well as the lives God is creating that you don’t seem to care about unless they and their mothers have all kinds of government goodies. You obviously don’t care that 17,000,000,000,000 taxpayer dollar were thrown down a jackass-hole with the great Democrat “War on Poverty” that increased the number of people IN poverty today from when it started 50 years ago. 17 trillion dollars wasted that could have paid down the debt this country was acquiring - 70% of which was rung up under this Democrat Administration in just 6 years. Today, the federal government came out and said we will be bankrupted in 25 years if we don’t reduce spending, increase full time jobs, and pay off this 17 trillion dollar debt that our kids and grand kids are going to be saddled with. Is that something yours and the bishops’ precious “Seamless Garment” should be concerned with - the bankrupting debt and the failure of government to help the poor get out of poverty? Where’s the fruit, Mark? Where’s the fruit?

Posted by Mark Shea on Tuesday, Jul 15, 2014 10:25 PM (EDT):

Tom: We have two partly pro-death parties and two parties that sometimes pursue certain ends that the Church approves. People pursue different sorts of moral calculus to figure out who to vote for, and generally do so in good faith, though I think an awful lot of that calculus is gummed up by a deep American love of consequentialism by which people assume that their particular favorite grave evil is morally excusable for the greater good. Blaming the Church for being in league with the hated Other Party is just a way to console oneself for ignoring the Church’s full teaching in preference to not making excuses for one’s own party.

JeffB: You seem to be under the impression that I don’t think we need to fight abortion, protect the family and preserve religious liberty. The assumption that heeding the fullness of the Church’s teaching somehow means ignoring these issues is exactly why the Seamless Garment is necessary. Your presumption that one aspect of the Church’s teaching is opposed to other aspects of the Church’s teaching is, ironically, classic Protestant either/or thinking. Also, the simplistic notion that the GOP is God’s party and anybody who votes Democrat is certainly guilty of mortal sin (in the teeth of what Ratzinger explicitly says to the contrary) is a fine specimen of how the Church’s teaching get co-opted by false culture war ideologies.

Posted by Stilbelieve on Tuesday, Jul 15, 2014 10:02 PM (EDT):

“In fact (as the Seamless Garment makes clear) the Church cuts across party lines and is both amenable to and hostile to certain sacred cows of each party.”

Mark, why was it necessary for the Church to “cut across party lines” when pro-life was a spiritual issue, not a political one, dealing with the need to get a Constitutional RTL Amendment? What made that political in the Church?

Posted by Stilbelieve on Tuesday, Jul 15, 2014 9:57 PM (EDT):

“Righties like Stillbelieve routinely complain that the bishops are in league with the Democrats.”

Mark, I’m not complaining; I’m pointing out. What is meant by the 1989 biography title “Cardinal Bernardin Easing conflicts - and battling for the soul of American Catholicism?” It was written by a 30-year long friend of his. What was happening in the Church in the early 80s, Mark, that necessitated a “battling for the soul of American Catholicism?”

Posted by JeffB on Tuesday, Jul 15, 2014 9:10 PM (EDT):

Mark, please copy-n-paste the following link, then scroll down and select the homily for Oct 7, 2012 titled “What Catholics Believe”

http://www.stjohnparish.org/homilies_archive.php

This homily contains the best explanation that I have ever heard on why we must defeat abortion, restore our families, and protect our religious freedom (before concerning ourselves with all other current issues).

I hope and pray that you will dedicate the 44 minutes to listen.

Your brother in Christ, Jeff

Posted by Tom C. on Tuesday, Jul 15, 2014 8:55 PM (EDT):

Mark,

Of course, I agree. I wish there was a party I could enthusiastically support. But again, right now we have a pro-death party that wants to kick poor pregnant women off of Obamacare. That’s not pro-life to me and I just can’t ignore that.

Posted by Mark Shea on Tuesday, Jul 15, 2014 8:21 PM (EDT):

Tom C.: Lefties routinely complain that the Church is the religious wing of the GOP. Righties like Stillbelieve routinely complain that the bishops are in league with the Democrats. In fact (as the Seamless Garment makes clear) the Church cuts across party lines and is both amenable to and hostile to certain sacred cows of each party. I suggest ditching party for the Church’s teaching.

Posted by Stilbelieve on Tuesday, Jul 15, 2014 8:08 PM (EDT):

Can’t argue with your math. But I don’t think Democrats will be able to do the math.

Posted by Stilbelieve on Tuesday, Jul 15, 2014 8:02 PM (EDT):

Tom C.

What makes you think the “Catholic Church” is “the religious wing of the Republican Party? And why do you think it is over?

Posted by Stilbelieve on Tuesday, Jul 15, 2014 7:59 PM (EDT):

Well said, Graig!

Posted by Tom C. on Tuesday, Jul 15, 2014 7:58 PM (EDT):

That’s right Craig Roberts. The time when you could count on the Catholic Church to be the religious wing of the Republican party is OVER.

Posted by Tom C. on Tuesday, Jul 15, 2014 7:46 PM (EDT):

Craig Roberts trying to pretend he is not a rabid partisan Republican while claiming to be “pro-life” but willing to kick pregnant women off Obamacare. THAT is hypocrisy.

Posted by Craig Roberts on Tuesday, Jul 15, 2014 7:41 PM (EDT):

@Tom C.

You’re both rabid partisan Democrats posing as ‘seamles garment’ Catholics, right? What I wrote applies to both of you. Notice I wrote “hypocrites” with an ‘s’.

Posted by Tom C. on Tuesday, Jul 15, 2014 7:38 PM (EDT):

Craig Roberts,

You do realize that Stuart Kenny is not me, right?

Posted by GregB on Tuesday, Jul 15, 2014 7:36 PM (EDT):

Stuart Kenny wrote:
*
A woman’s womb is like a man’s home—the State should not interfere with what goes on inside it. The Stand Your Ground laws say that only the owner has the right to make the difficult decisions about the safety of his home—the State can’t tell him how to handle the situations which come within his walls.
*
For years men used this line of reasoning to get away with performing acts of domestic violence. The reasoning was that a man’s home was his castle and that whatever he did there was his own personal, private business, including domestic violence. This line of reasoning can also be used to excuse honor killings.

Posted by Craig Roberts on Tuesday, Jul 15, 2014 7:17 PM (EDT):

“A vote for the Republican party is a vote to kill babies.”

“Calling the Democrats (including me) the Party of Death is a sin.”

Howabout hypocrites?

Posted by Stuart Kenny on Tuesday, Jul 15, 2014 6:02 PM (EDT):

Calling the Democrats (including me) the Party of Death is a sin:

2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury.278 He becomes guilty:

- of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor;

- of detraction who, without objectively valid reason, discloses another’s faults and failings to persons who did not know them;279

- of calumny who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them.

2478 To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor’s thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:

Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another’s statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. And if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved.280

Posted by Tom C. on Tuesday, Jul 15, 2014 5:55 PM (EDT):

Suddenly people like JeffB NOW want to listen to a few of the American bishops. And, of course, I’m sure he agrees with the bishops when it comes to immigration right?

I would say that you can’t vote for the current Republican party of death and remain in a state of grace. The Republican party currently wants to take away health care for women who are getting prenatal care for the first time in their lives. Having a baby without health insurance was prohibitively expensive and I have no doubt babies lives have been saved due to Obamacare and Republicans want to take that away. A vote for the Republican party is a vote to kill babies.

Posted by JeffB on Tuesday, Jul 15, 2014 5:21 PM (EDT):

Yes, so right there at the end his letter it says, “…permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.” Then, two very holy bishops took that and gave clarification that there are no proportionate reasons up for consideration in the USA. A third came in 4 years later and said you need to be very careful with your vote or face eternal damnation. As Cardinal Arinze stated, you don’t need a cardinal to tell you what a 7 year old can tell you. All these holy men are trying to tell you that there is no “proportionate reasons” to permit voting for the party of death. Short of the other party trying to pass race based discriminatory laws and or bring back slavery, you can’t vote for the party of death and remain in a state of grace. It really is that simple.

Posted by Stuart Kenny on Tuesday, Jul 15, 2014 5:09 PM (EDT):

A woman’s womb is like a man’s home—the State should not interfere with what goes on inside it. The Stand Your Ground laws say that only the owner has the right to make the difficult decisions about the safety of his home—the State can’t tell him how to handle the situations which come within his walls.

In the same way, the State should not tell a woman how to handle the very difficult decisions she might have during a pregnancy.

To say that Democrats are responsible for the deaths of the unborn is the same as saying that Republicans who vote for Stand Your Ground are responsible for the deaths of those who are killed due to that law. Or that those Republicans who vote for Open Carry are responsible for those who die as a result. Giving people the legal freedom they deserve is not a guarantee they will use it properly, but they still deserve that freedom to choose.

Posted by Mark Shea on Tuesday, Jul 15, 2014 4:50 PM (EDT):

Shorter Paul Frantizek: “I want a Church that tells me when I *get* to kill, but the Church I have insists on framing the question only as ‘When might we tragically have to kill?’ and tries to limit killing even the guilty to as rare an occasion as possible.”

Posted by Jeff Boland on Tuesday, Jul 15, 2014 4:47 PM (EDT):

I have never liked the term “Seamless Garment” to explain Catholic teaching because it is so easily misused by progressives. Unfortunately, there are generations of Catholics who were not properly catechized. It is critically important that a clear distinction be made between life issues such as abortion, euthanasia, etc., which are non-negotiable, and matters of prudential judgement—of which there are many—such as a fair minimum wage or proper stewardship of the environment, to name just two. As a Catechist I will NEVER use the “Seamless Garment” term to explain the faith.

If you read my comment Mark let me tell you that I thoroughly enjoy reading your books. My favorite is “Making Senses Out of Scripture: Reading the Bible as the First Christians Did.”

Posted by Mark Shea on Tuesday, Jul 15, 2014 4:47 PM (EDT):

JeffB:

My “mental gymnastics” are simply a regurgitation of Cardinal Ratzinger’s (B16’s) teaching in his 2004 letter:

“[N.B. A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.]

Once again we see the so-called “seamless garment” being used as a sword, to attack and divide, not to bring the Church together, but to castigate others. If that is all it is going to be used for, it would be better to get rid of the metaphor.

Posted by JeffB on Tuesday, Jul 15, 2014 4:03 PM (EDT):

Mark, there you go again with the mental gymnastics: “if somebody votes for a pro-abort candidate, not to support abortion, but for some other proportional reason,…” You cannot seriously take that sentence and justify voting for anyone running for US office as a member of Democratic. I would say that the vast majority of those running for state positions are out as well. That’s why Bishop Farrell & Bishop Vann wrote, “There are no “truly grave moral” or “proportionate” reasons, singularly or combined, that could outweigh the millions of innocent human lives that are directly killed by legal abortion each year.” They are telling you that you can take all the other issues and stack them up and they still don’t justify voting for pro-aborts. But it doesn’t stop there. I listed another 9 above. Until these are gone, you need to stop pretending it’s ok to vote for them. Even worse, giving others some sort of imaginary cover to vote for this evil. How many intrinsic evils does it take before you realize that you cannot vote for the party of death, immorality & theft? Jesus says, “If you love me, you will keep my commandments.”

Posted by Stilbelieve on Tuesday, Jul 15, 2014 3:48 PM (EDT):

Mark - you ended saying, “There is absolutely no reason to pit the Church’s teaching on abortion against the rest of the Church’s teaching on the fifth commandment. So why do you persist in doing so?”

The Church’s teaching on the fifth commandment- CCC"2268-2283, 2321-2326 (Compendium of the CCC) 470” asks: “What is forbidden by the fifth commandment? The fifth commandment forbids as gravely contrary to the moral law: - direct and intentional murder and cooperation in it; - direct abortion, willed as an end or as means, AS WELL AS COOPERATION IN IT (my emphasis). Attached to this sin is the penalty of excommunication because, from the moment of his or her conception, the human being MUST BE ABSOLUTELY RESPECTED AND PROTECTED IN HIS INTEGRITY (my emphasis). - Direct euthanasia which consist in putting an end to the life of the handicapped, the sick, or those near death by an act or by the omission of a required ACTION; - Suicide and voluntary cooperation in it, insofar as it is a grave offense against the just love of God, or self, and of neighbor. One’s responsibility may be aggravated by the scandal given; one who is psychologically disturbed or is experiencing grave fear may have diminished responsibility”

I’m not pitting “the Church’s teaching on abortion against the rest of the Church’s teaching on the fifth commandment.” Except for suicide and voluntary cooperation in it, I am pointing out that “the Church’s teaching on murder, abortion and euthanasia is being violated by an organization that is solely responsible for its continuing, and that organization gets its power to do so from Catholics. Catholics are the largest single group in that organization giving it the electoral power to continue violating God’s laws of murder, abortion, and euthanasia, laws those Catholics say they believe should be obeyed. Those Catholics are not “absolutely respecting and protecting his integrity.” If they were, they would remove themselves from endorsing that organization with their names and support; pure and simple. There is no justifiable reason in Church teaching that exonerates them from their cooperation in these murders, abortions, and euthanasia. If that isn’t enough reason for Catholics to leave that organization, then the Church teaching on the “PARTICULAR SIN AGAINST THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT OF JOINING AN ORGANIZATION that promotes racism and prejudice, such as the Nazi Party or the KKK, OR ANY OTHER DENIAL OF HUMAN RIGHTS. If it is a “particular sin” to join such organizations, then certainly it must be a “particular sin’ to join this organization responsible for murders, abortions, and euthanasia, remaining legal – the Democratic Party.

Donald Link put it so succinctly in his comment above: “It is long past time we chuck the seamless garment nonsense and return to good old fashioned theological principles which evaluate matters individually according to their own intrinsic values.”

To that I would add – Such Catholics’ own salvation is being placed in jeopardy by whatever reasoning he/she has for remaining in and supporting the pro-abortion Democratic Party. They are the “weeds” among the “wheat.” They will be in with the other goats when Jesus returns and they will be crying out and gnashing their teeth in disbelief when He says to them, “Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.” I don’t want this to happen to misguided Catholics as much as I don’t want a single baby to lose their life to abortion.

Posted by eddie too on Tuesday, Jul 15, 2014 3:31 PM (EDT):

why are the wombs of the mothers to be held more special than the wombs of the little girls these mothers pay to have killed in abortions?

the full depths of stupidity in the argument that pregnant women have no responsibility for the well-being of the infants they carry cannot be adequately plumbed.

Posted by Paul Frantizek on Tuesday, Jul 15, 2014 3:04 PM (EDT):

I take grave exception to the so-called ‘Consistent Life Ethic’ due to it implicit rejection of natural law principles. Natural law theory teaches that people, and by extension society, are justified in using force in defense of certain things - life and limb, bodily integrity, property, freedom of conscience.

By placing the life of the convicted criminal on an equal footing of the unborn child, the CLE tacitly rejects that principle of self-defense. Criminals are ultimately responsible for whatever force society uses against them by virtue of their crimes.

Posted by mrscracker on Tuesday, Jul 15, 2014 2:42 PM (EDT):

Stilbelieve,
I hear what you’re saying, but it’s a little more complicated than that.We had numerous free people of color who owned slaves in Louisiana & South Carolina.Some free black people owned large plantations, too.During colonial times, at least 40% of New York City households had slaves.
Everything doesn’t always split on a political party divide.And parties change policies over time-as you know.
I’m a member of the NRA, I hear you on gun control, too.

Posted by Stilbelieve on Tuesday, Jul 15, 2014 2:20 PM (EDT):

Stuart Kenny - “so the government does have a role in protecting the common good?”

Describe the “common good.” Give examples. Who is to decide what the “common good” is? But most of all - what is the “common?”

Posted by mrscracker on Tuesday, Jul 15, 2014 2:17 PM (EDT):

Stuart,
One might hope that all mothers have a greater interest in their child’s welfare than the govt does, but sadly that doesn’t allows follow.
Thank you for reminding us that motherhood precedes a child’s delivery.

Posted by Stilbelieve on Tuesday, Jul 15, 2014 2:11 PM (EDT):

Stuart Kenny -

“Democrats are NOT trying to keep abortion legal—Democrats are trying to keep the State from interfering with the vocation of motherhood. Democrats are trying to keep the State out of women’s wombs.”

Well, Stuart, I hate to break the news to you, but the Democrats are solely responsible for the murder of 57,000,000 babies - and that is just those medical abortions we know of. How many wars need to be fought before the body count reaches 57,000,000? I don’t think the total number of abortions in the world amounted to 57,000,000 before 1973. But in 41 years of Democrat attack on the right to life in the U.S., keeping suspected anti-Roe v. Wade judges off the Supreme Court by using calumny, and electing only pro-abortion candidates, not even allowing a pro-life Democrat elected official to address their national conventions, the Democrats, and especially Catholic Democrats have turned their backs to God, common sense and decency.

Stuart, when are you going to address my questions concerning the male role in abortion. Men are the big winners in abortion because they get off Scott free; no responsibility, just using women for their own, selfish pleasure, leaving women to have to deal with the consequences which may include physical damage where they may never be able to get pregnant again, and certainly having to live with the guilt of letting someone murder their baby.

What spiritual beliefs do you have that bring you to this website?

Posted by Stilbelieve on Tuesday, Jul 15, 2014 1:47 PM (EDT):

Tom C - you realize that Lyndon Johnson’s and the Democratic Party’s “War on poverty” has cost the country $17,000,000,000,000. That’s equivalent to what the national debt is today, of which 70% has come from this current Democrat Administration alone in less than 6 years. The poverty rate in 1964 when Johnson and the Democrat Congress got their “war on poverty” bill passed was 14.9%. Fifty years later, and $17,000,000,000,000 spent on eliminating poverty, that’s 17 TRILLION dollars of working taxpayers’ money, the poverty rate today is 15%.

Perhaps government’s throwing money at something requires something else to make it work as intended, something the Democratic Party hasn’t seemed to figure out since the Great Depression. The people in the poverty sector that have been affected the most by this Democrat “war on poverty,” are the descendants of the Democrats former slaves. In 1964, their single family household was 35%; today it is 70%. The abortion rate back in 1964 is unknown because it was illegal for doctors or anyone to perform abortions, but lets guess it was less than 5%. Today, it is 75%. The unemployment rate of blacks today is in the high teens, with the unemployment rate of teenage blacks at 50%. Perhaps, maybe black people today might start thinking that perhaps their success in life isn’t going to come from the party that used to own them as slaves, and today has them corralled back on the Democratic plantation. Perhaps they need to take a look at the party that was formed to free them - and did so at a great cost of life. Most blacks were Republicans after the Civil War. But slowly and surely the Democratic Party got them back onto the Democrat plantation with promises they never fulfilled.

Gun control? Chicaaago, Chicaaago, what a murdering town, Chicaaago, Chicago, hasn’t a gun shop in town, try to buy a gun you have to go somewhere else - because Chicassgo, Chicassgo has the toughest gun-control laws in the country.

Posted by David Naas on Tuesday, Jul 15, 2014 1:17 PM (EDT):

How about if we just say, “There are no expendable people.”?

Posted by Stuart Kenny on Tuesday, Jul 15, 2014 1:10 PM (EDT):

The mother has a greater interest than the State in keeping the unborn child alive. She has a personal interest; for the State, the unborn child could turn out to be a burden on taxpayers.

Mothers, therefore, do a better job of making decisions about unborn children than the State. A pro-life vote is one which keeps the State from interfering with a mother’s womb.

Posted by mrscracker on Tuesday, Jul 15, 2014 12:57 PM (EDT):

The “vocation of motherhood” assumes a living child.

Posted by mrscracker on Tuesday, Jul 15, 2014 12:39 PM (EDT):

Stilbelieve ,
I’d agree that we’ve been a part of the problem.

Posted by Stuart Kenny on Tuesday, Jul 15, 2014 12:38 PM (EDT):

Democrats are NOT trying to keep abortion legal—Democrats are trying to keep the State from interfering with the vocation of motherhood. Democrats are trying to keep the State out of women’s wombs.

Somebody has to make the difficult decisions involving the unborn—Democrats believe women are better suited to making those decisions than the State.

Posted by Tom C. on Tuesday, Jul 15, 2014 12:34 PM (EDT):

I would submit that anyone who associates with the modern Republican party can’t actually be against abortion. It is simply a FACT that in places where the government actively seeks to reduce inequality and poverty like Scandinavia the abortion rate is lower than it is in countries in Central and South America. This is the case even though abortion is legal in Scandinavia and illegal in Central and South America. And aren’t these Republican stooges always telling us that we can’t do anything on gun control because “if criminals want guns, they’ll always find a way of getting them”? The hypocrisy of the low-information right wing sometimes really takes your breath away.

Posted by Stilbelieve on Tuesday, Jul 15, 2014 12:26 PM (EDT):

“Stillbelieve is, perhaps, the most reflexively Republican commenter on these boards”

Bill, I’m a Catholic. I used to be a “true believer” Catholic Democrat. I was born in an Irish Catholic Democrat family on the Southside of Chicago with ties to ND in South Bend with a mother who was born and raised their, a father who attend ND, and uncle who became a Holy Cross priest who later was a missionary to Africa, then a Cannon layer in Rome, then appointed Procurator General of Holy Cross Oder, then bishop, and then archbishop. My second oldest brother was VP of the Young Democrats Club of Will County Illinois who introduced John F. Kennedy, Democrat nominee for President, to a large crowd in the center of Joliet, Il where I was given my first job in politics by my brother - to get the Nixon signs down before Senator Kennedy arrived; being a good Democrat I got a couple other guys to help and we took down all the Nixon signs - right out to the hands of those holding them. Afterwards, I had a one-on-one moment with JFK, just he and I and the motor cycle cop I almost knocked over reaching up to shake his hand seated on top of the convertible back seat as he reached down to shake mine with that great grin of his, as his driver was pulling slowly into the parking garage after the rally for a fund raising event.

Republican? No. Catholic, yes. I amputated my political identity off of my Catholic identity when I removed my name from the Democrat voter registration rolls, when I realized the party became dedicated to keeping abortion legal. A year of embryology in college was helpful in my decision, as well - I knew when life began and what we all looked like, once. However, I couldn’t register as a Republican because of the residual Democratic propaganda I was raised on of their “being for the little guy” still polluting my mind. BUT being pro-life I started to meet and get to know Republicans for the first time because they were they only ones running for Congress who were pro-life. I focused on Congress because they were the starting point of passing a Constitutional RTL Amendment. I talked about one of the first Republicans I ever met in a comment above. He spent 45 minutes with me after a “Meet the candidate pro-life forum in the park.” I’d asked questions; he’d answer them. He did most of the talking. I didn’t argue with him, just asked another question. That was the beginning for me to realize how wrong my thinking was about Republicans, they were nothing like I was told they were like, told by the Democratic Party - the party of slavery; KKK; Jim Crow Laws; separate drinking fountains; restrooms, etc; water hosing, Planned Parenthood, eugenics, now abortion; same-sex “marriage;” anti-Freedom of Religion; and anti-Catholic Church. Several years later, after working with Republicans helping them defeat pro-abortion Democrats, replacing them with pro-life Republicans, I endorsed that party when I heard on the news that the GOP Convention voted to put a Right-to-Life Constitutional Amendment on their party platform. Knowing how going-against-the-current and un-politically correct that was, I decided to give my name to the Republican Party in support of their brave and honorable decision to fight not only the injustice of abortion, but the wrong and damage it will cause America.

Bill, how did you come to choose your political association? Thank you for giving me an opportunity to explain mine. And just to be clear - I’m a Catholic who has found a home in morally like-mind men and women in the Republican Party

Posted by Stuart Kenny on Tuesday, Jul 15, 2014 12:18 PM (EDT):

Stillbelieve—so the government does have a role in protecting the common good? If the government starts protecting people from murderers, isn’t that a slippery slope to the government protecting people from disease?

You say: God demands we obey His 10 Commandments. The 5th Commandment is “Thou shall not murder.

Jesus says: “You have heard that the ancients were told, ‘YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT MURDER ’ and ‘Whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court.’ “But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, ‘You good-for-nothing,’ shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell.”

I’m with Jesus on this one.

I bet you love what the Pope said about welcoming immigrants today! :)

Posted by mrscracker on Tuesday, Jul 15, 2014 11:55 AM (EDT):

Can any right follow without first, the right to life itself?

Posted by Stilbelieve on Tuesday, Jul 15, 2014 11:10 AM (EDT):

Stuart Kenny - “My point is that the mother should make those decisions, not the State—does this mean you agree?”

Nice try; no. God demands we obey His 10 Commandments. The 5th Commandment is “Thou shall not murder.” Abortion is the murder of a human life Catholics and Christians believe God created. God also said, “I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. Choose life, then, that you and your descendants may live. (Dt 30:20)
Jesus said “You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the greatest and the first commandment.” (Mt 22:37,38)

One who supports the murder of God’s greatest gift - life, does not love God with all the heart, soul or mind.

Christ said the second Greatest gift is: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” (Mt 22:39) If you neighbor murders you, is he/she showing love for you? If you murder your neighbor, are you showing love for her/him? The unborn are innocent human life, as you once were. They can not protect themselves, you could not protect yourself, but we can, and are commanded by God to do so.

Posted by Tom C. on Tuesday, Jul 15, 2014 10:49 AM (EDT):

@Stuart Kenny

Thank you for the education on the hypocrisy of so-called pro-lifers. I always suspected that they used the abortion issue to dupe sincere religious people to cover the shame of pro-death Republicans.

Posted by mrscracker on Tuesday, Jul 15, 2014 9:48 AM (EDT):

Stuart,
I don’t think “sole jurisdiction” is the correct terminology. The state has an interest in the well being of it’s citizens .And parental rights only go so far in our current society.
Ancient Rome had different rules regarding children & parental rights.Tribes in the Amazon until very recently could bury children alive with a deceased parent to keep them company in the afterlife.
Human rights has been evolving & changing mostly for the better. It’s still a work in progress.But a humane society doesn’t just wait & see until econonmic conditions change enough to make slavery unprofitable.Or until mechanization replaces the need for slaves.We made laws that restricted or prohibited slavery & the slave trade.And additionally, abolitionists tried to waken the public conscience.
We just celebrated the 4th of July.It’s an irony that the United States had slaves long after Britain abolished slavery.The British actually offered freedom to slaves owned by American patriots & gave them safe passage to Canada.Not that Britain did this without self interest or with real abolitionist conviction, as they also allowed Loyalist evacuees to take their own slaves to Canada.

Posted by Richard Malcolm on Tuesday, Jul 15, 2014 8:50 AM (EDT):

“Just to make a point—nobody is “pro-abortion.”

You should meet Rev. Katherine Ragsdale, Dean of Episcopal Divinity School in Boston, who rather infamously defended abortion as a positive good in her acceptance speech: “These are the two things I want you, please, to remember – abortion is a blessing and our work is not done. Let me hear you say it: abortion is a blessing and our work is not done. Abortion is a blessing and our work is not done. Abortion is a blessing and our work is not done.”

There *are* people who really are pro-abortion, not merely “pro-choice.” I’ve met them. It is perhaps a blessing to you that you have not.

Posted by Bill on Tuesday, Jul 15, 2014 8:48 AM (EDT):

Stillbelieve is, perhaps, the most reflexively Republican commenter on these boards. Even other conservatives aren’t as orthodox GOP as he/she is. I mean whatever, what floats your boat.

Posted by Stuart Kenny on Tuesday, Jul 15, 2014 8:46 AM (EDT):

Stillbelieve said: “Show me where in the bible Jesus directed his disciples to get government to do anything he taught them to do themselves?”
Such as make decisions about the unborn? My point is that the mother should make those decisions, not the State—does this mean you agree?

Posted by Tom C. on Tuesday, Jul 15, 2014 3:02 AM (EDT):

Stilbelieve said to show him in the bible? What kind of protestantism is this?

We’re Catholics and we get our teachings from the Popes. Here is what Pope Pius XI had to say on the duties of government:

“In the first place, the worker must be paid a wage sufficient to support him and his family. That the rest of the family should also contribute to the common support, according to the capacity of each, is certainly right, as can be observed especially in the families of farmers, but also in the families of many craftsmen and small shopkeepers. But to abuse the years of childhood and the limited strength of women is grossly wrong. Mothers, concentrating on household duties, should work primarily in the home or in its immediate vicinity. It is an intolerable abuse, and to be abolished at all cost, for mothers on account of the father’s low wage to be forced to engage in gainful occupations outside the home to the neglect of their proper cares and duties, especially the training of children. Every effort must therefore be made that fathers of families receive a wage large enough to meet ordinary family needs adequately. But if this cannot always be done under existing circumstances, social justice demands that changes be introduced as soon as possible whereby such a wage will be assured to every adult workingman.

You are forgetting that fatherhood is a vocation as well. Children do not leap into being within the womb of their mothers minus the contribution of their fathers. The Church says that we, as parents, are “co-creators with God” when procreate. That being the case, if God has gifted women with the vocation of motherhood, then it stands to reason that He has given men the gift of fatherhood as a vocation.

The human family is a reflection of the Holy Trinity and this is incredibly evident in the example of the Holy Family. We know, of course, the significance and importance of Our Lord and the Blessed Virgin Mary, but they were not alone. God provided St. Joseph to protect, nurture, love, and sacrifice for Jesus and Our Lady. He is a powerful example of the vocation of fatherhood. He was called to it by God (through an angelic message in a dream). You may recall that St. Joseph was planning to divorce Mary but when he received the command to take her as his wife, he immediately obeyed. St. Joseph didn’t obviously contribute to the creation of Jesus’ human body in the same way that my husband did with our three children, but he did contribute to Jesus growth and development in body, mind, and spirit through his provision, wisdom, and guidance.

Posted by Stilbelieve on Tuesday, Jul 15, 2014 2:26 AM (EDT):

Mark - You said, “This is why the bishops have called for health care for all citizens for nearly a century”

Well, they are wrong. Jesus directed them to do it, not government. We each have a responsibility to pay our own way for our needs and the needs of our family. Paul says if you don’t work - you don’t eat.

You continued, “If you didn’t talk as though everything is to be judged politically instead of in light of the Church’s teaching, you might see that.”

Does it sound like I’m basing my thinking on “politics” with my above answers? Show me where in the bible Jesus directed his disciples to get government to do anything he taught them to do themselves?

Posted by Stilbelieve on Tuesday, Jul 15, 2014 2:14 AM (EDT):

Mark - 2211

I agree with that down to emigrate as long it is done legally.

As far as “the right to medical care,” as long as they take responsibility for it themselves. I don’t think the government, i.e., the working taxing public, should be held responsible for that; that is where Jesus’ teaching comes in. He never directed his disciples to get government to do what he directed them to do themselves.

Posted by Stuart Kenny on Tuesday, Jul 15, 2014 2:06 AM (EDT):

Stillbelieve—so Herod was not guilty? Nor Pilate? Nor those who called for Jesus’ crucifixion? Those who killed the prophets? Or those who witnessed the stoning of Stephen? Those who stoned Stephen? Or those who called for the stoning of the adultress? Or the guards holding Peter? None of them were guilty?

“Four, no one involved with the execution of a capital offender is guilty of sin, from the witnesses, to the police capturing the person, to the prosecuting attorney, to the jury finding the person guilty, to the sentencing judge, to the prison guards, to the persons carrying out the execution of the capital offender. No sin was ever assigned to any one of them in the past, nor will there one in the future.”

Posted by Stilbelieve on Tuesday, Jul 15, 2014 2:04 AM (EDT):

Mark - “2288”

So, what is the problem here? A job is the best solution for enabling people to take care of themselves. I support a government that creates the environment for good paying jobs to be plentiful, and an educational system that is compatible with graduates able to fulfill the job requirements.

Posted by Stilbelieve on Tuesday, Jul 15, 2014 1:58 AM (EDT):

Mark - “Your casual dismissal of this fact on purely partisan lines is a fine illustration of why the Seamless Garment matters.”

So what is the Church’s solution for murder and suicides with the use of guns; eliminating the Second Constitutional Amendment?

Posted by Stuart Kenny on Tuesday, Jul 15, 2014 1:56 AM (EDT):

Because God gave the vocation of motherhood to women, not men. God trusts women to make decisions about their children from the moment of the child’s conception. If God trusts women that much (and He trusted Mary with the conception of His Son), then I trust women, too.

God didn’t go to the State and give them jurisdiction over His embryonic Son. I’m with God on this one.

Posted by Stilbelieve on Tuesday, Jul 15, 2014 1:52 AM (EDT):

Tom C - Catholics are required to act on what they say they believe and pray for. In this case, Catholics are to recognize what many constitutional lawyers say about Row v. Wade, with Alan Dershowitz being one of the most respected and strongest constitutional lawyers who say the Roe v Wade was a terrible court ruling. He is a champion of liberal causes, but not if it violates the constitution. He totally opposes the Roe v Wade decision.

The Church’s teaching has always supported the concept of a just capital punishment. Only recently has She implied that capital punishment is not necessary in high tech societies. The problem with that new teaching is four fold. One, She never has presented any evidence to support Her assumption that innocent people can be protected from any further harm from capital offenders. Two, high tech society professionals in the criminal justice system agree from federal prosecutors and state correction officials to city police chiefs that there is no way they can stop capital offenders from continuing to harm innocent people, even when housed in solitary confinement with no physical contact with other prisoners, living in glass cells with 24 hour guards. Three, basing the justification of capital offenses on the advancement of a society creates a sliding scale of applying what is supposedly morally wrong in the first place, making a mockery of the morality of it. Four, no one involved with the execution of a capital offender is guilty of sin, from the witnesses, to the police capturing the person, to the prosecuting attorney, to the jury finding the person guilty, to the sentencing judge, to the prison guards, to the persons carrying out the execution of the capital offender. No sin was ever assigned to any one of them in the past, nor will there one in the future.

Posted by Stilbelieve on Tuesday, Jul 15, 2014 1:08 AM (EDT):

Stuart Kenny - why are you focused just on the woman? Her getting pregnant involves two parties, her and her co-copulatory. Has man no involvement in the physical creation of life? Has man no responsibilities in this matter? Seems like he is getting off Scott free. Yeah, I can understand what men want abortion to be legal.

Posted by Stuart Kenny on Tuesday, Jul 15, 2014 12:56 AM (EDT):

I would argue that no one gives the kill order.

It comes down to this choice: Either the woman has jurisdiction over her unborn child or the State does. If we give the power of life and death from the moment of conception to the State, when does the State relinquish that power? What if the State chooses not to relinquish that power at birth, or ever?

If we say that what the Catechism teaches about the death penalty is only an opinion and people can disagree, how can we stop the State from deciding who gets to be killed? Again, I use Herod as an example of the State. If the Catechism is just an opinion, why was Herod wrong? From his standpoint, he was weeding out potential terrorists. Just like our Border Patrol.

And if the State can determine when it is just to apply the death penalty, why can’t the State decide when someone has outlived her usefulness and needs to be quietly sent to greener pastures?

If we give the State, instead of the mother, the power of life and death at conception, I don’t see how we can stop the State from continuing to hold onto that power. Unless women and their wombs are free from State interference, then I can’t see us not ending up under something like a Pol Pot or Stalinist regime.

Because God entrusted women with the vocation to motherhood, I trust women not to kill their children more than I trust the State not to kill its citizens, unborn or born.

Posted by Tom C. on Tuesday, Jul 15, 2014 12:46 AM (EDT):

This brings up an interesting question. Are Catholics required to be in favor of the criminalizing of abortion with its requisite penalties? I understand that St. Thomas and some popes were in favor of the legalization of brothels. Would this be a proper analogy?

Posted by Mark Shea on Tuesday, Jul 15, 2014 12:00 AM (EDT):

Stuart: So your quarrel is no with babies being murdered, but merely with who gets to give the kill order?

What was that you were saying about mortal sin earlier?

Posted by Stuart Kenny on Monday, Jul 14, 2014 11:31 PM (EDT):

And you can’t offer a principled objection to the State taking the infant away from the mother and putting him in the hands of a State-appointed guardian—if the State has jurisdiction over the child from conception, when does that jurisdiction end? You can’t offer a principled objection to Herod (the State) killing the Holy Innocents for whatever reason the State chooses.

Voting to give mothers sole jurisdiction over their vocation and their wombs means removing the power of the State when making decisions about the lives of children born and unborn. There is no way to harness the State when it has been given that level of power.

Posted by Richard Malcolm on Monday, Jul 14, 2014 10:32 PM (EDT):

Stuart:

“Thus, I believe that decisions about the unborn need to be left solely to the mother. That is what God has called her to do.”

On these grounds, it is impossible to see how you could offer any principled objection to infanticide.

Posted by Mark Shea on Monday, Jul 14, 2014 10:18 PM (EDT):

Stillbelieve:

Actually, “gun violence” is roughly 30,000 dead people each year by murder and suicide (with roughly two Sandy Hooks and Columbines per year thrown in), which is a violation of the fifth commandment, since the Church is concerned about *all* sins of murder and not merely those convenient to your ideological commitments. Your casual dismissal of this fact on purely partisan lines is a fine illustration of why the Seamless Garment matters.

Similarly, holy Church teaches:

2288 Life and physical health are precious gifts entrusted to us by God. We must take reasonable care of them, taking into account the needs of others and the common good.

Concern for the health of its citizens requires that society help in the attainment of living-conditions that allow them to grow and reach maturity: food and clothing, housing, health care, basic education, employment, and social assistance.

Indeed, the Church says that medical care is a right:

2211 The political community has a duty to honor the family, to assist it, and to ensure especially:
- the freedom to establish a family, have children, and bring them up in keeping with the family’s own moral and religious convictions;

- the protection of the stability of the marriage bond and the institution of the family;

- the freedom to profess one’s faith, to hand it on, and raise one’s children in it, with the necessary means and institutions;

- the right to private property, to free enterprise, to obtain work and housing, and the right to emigrate;

- in keeping with the country’s institutions, the right to medical care, assistance for the aged, and family benefits;

- the protection of security and health, especially with respect to dangers like drugs, pornography, alcoholism, etc.;

- the freedom to form associations with other families and so to have representation before civil authority.

This is why the bishops have called for health care for all citizens for nearly a century. If you didn’t talk as though everything is to be judged politically instead of in light of the Church’s teaching, you might see that. There is absolutely no reason to pit the Church’s teaching on abortion against the rest of the Church’s teaching on the fifth commandment. So why do you persist in doing so?

Posted by Stilbelieve on Monday, Jul 14, 2014 9:35 PM (EDT):

Stuart Kenny - “Or a posterity which has died due to global warming? Or gun violence? Or lack of health care?”

Great Article! Having a mother and Grandmother who were seamstresses I find one thing lacking in the seamless garment analogy. All good garments Need a hem or binding at the edge to keep them from unraveling. To round out the analogy I would suggest that the Magisterium would be that hem keeping all the threads from unraveling. I think that may be what Mark is trying to bring to the discussion? Writing this helped me find my bearings somewhat as I have to acknowledge my rebellion and submit to the teaching authority of the Church! IN Christs’ Love Marty

Posted by Stuart Kenny on Monday, Jul 14, 2014 8:23 PM (EDT):

Or a posterity which has died due to global warming? Or gun violence? Or lack of health care?

Posted by GregB on Monday, Jul 14, 2014 8:07 PM (EDT):

@ Stilbelieve:
*
I recently posted a comment on another article in relation to the US Constitution. Here is a copy of it:
*
The Preamble to the U.S. Constitution reads as follows:
*
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
*
Pay particular attention to the phrase “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” Posterity as in future generations of Americans, generations as of yet unborn. How does one “secure the Blessings of Liberty” for a Posterity that has been aborted?

Posted by GregB on Monday, Jul 14, 2014 7:50 PM (EDT):

@ mrscracker:
*
I found your posting about the midwife in Sweden to be very interesting. As I recall Soviet dissidents were exposed to the political abuse of psychiatry to suppress their political views.

Posted by Stilbelieve on Monday, Jul 14, 2014 7:43 PM (EDT):

Stuart Kenny - “If a country outlawed abortion, what would be the penalty for a woman who has an abortion?”

Return to the law held by all 50 states. The law prohibited the medical doctors or anybody else from performing that procedure. As for a woman found to have had an abortion, I don’t remember hearing anything about punishment.

Today, with the ability to prevent pregnancy, a woman should, more than ever, pay a penalty for getting an abortion if the unborn’s right to life is returned to them which is already in the Constitution, in the 14th Amendment:“No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life…without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” As should the man who impregnated her.

Posted by Stuart Kenny on Monday, Jul 14, 2014 6:54 PM (EDT):

One could fight slavery by creating an economy where slavery was unnecessary. The abortion rate is lower under Obama than it has been under any Republican president. The abortion rate is lower in countries such as those in Northern Europe where women are guaranteed health care. Therefore, voting for similar policies to those with a reduced number of abortions is voting pro-life.

If a country outlawed abortion, what would be the penalty for a woman who has an abortion? If you say anything other than Death or Life Without Parole (or whatever the penalty is for first degree premeditated murder), then your are “pro-choice.” You do not literally see an embryo as a full human being unless you are willing to prosecute every woman who has an abortion with the same force of law as you would Ted Bundy.

Most people can see the distinction between a scared teenage girl and Ted Bundy. If you can see that distinction, you are pro-choice.

Posted by mrscracker on Monday, Jul 14, 2014 5:28 PM (EDT):

Stuart Kenny,
I’m taking your comments as sincere.
Similar arguements were used regarding slavery. Many slave owners like Thomas Jeferson, regretted slavery, wanted to eliminate it, but realized that it was so tied up with the national economy-not to mention their own personal finances-that it was not possible.So, on the one hand, they probably did see slavery as an injustice, but there were enormous financial considerations that tipped the scale.
Abortion has some folks similarily conflicted.I’d agree that we need to work on preventing abortions, but I think we’d disagree on the means.
Sure, trying to work on the issues that create slavery, abortion, human trafficking, etc is a good thing, but it will always be an ongoing battle.In the meantime, legitimizing or legalizing human rights violations can’t be the answer.

Posted by Stilbelieve on Monday, Jul 14, 2014 5:21 PM (EDT):

Stuart Kenny - Abortionist are “pro-abortion.” The Democratic Party is “pro-abortion.” It is not a lie, slander or calumny if it is the truth when candidates fight to keep abortion legal. And it is not a mortal sin to speak the truth. Abortions were rare when there were laws against them. And that was when there was a lot fewer programs to to help women.

Finally, we don’t want to reduce abortions, we want to make them illegal to end them. Laws against something doesn’t eliminated that something from ever happening again, it makes them happen far less. There are laws against murder - but people still murder. Outlawing abortion will save millions ever year. And those people are needed in order for socialism to survive because so many Democrat programs demand somebody to be working paying for them. Whey Social Security was started, 27 people’s contributions went to pay one SS recipient. Today, 3 people are now required to contribute to 1 persons SS retirement. If a recipient is getting $1500 a month from SS, 3 people are having to pay $500 a month each. As we run out of people/enough workers, 1 person will have to pay $1500 a month for that 1 SS recipient. Abortion has a lot more serious side effects than the pro-abortion party wants to even think about.

Posted by Stuart Kenny on Monday, Jul 14, 2014 5:02 PM (EDT):

Just to make a point—nobody is “pro-abortion.” Nobody wants abortions to happen. To say that Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden or Nancy Pelosi want women to have abortions is simply a lie and slander—a mortal sin. We all want to reduce abortions. For many, the best way to eliminate abortions is to eliminate the reasons why women have abortions.

To repeat—nobody wants women to have abortions. The question is whether outlawing abortion or eliminating the need for abortion is the best way to stop abortions.

Posted by Donald Link on Monday, Jul 14, 2014 4:59 PM (EDT):

Cardinal Bernadin was a humble man, with much to be humble about, imbued with a commendable piety. These are qualities well served as reprsented by the cure d’ Ars but not so much a prince of the church who should be providing definative moral leadership. It is long past time we chuck the seamless garment nonsense and return to good old fashioned theological principles which evaluate matters individualy according to their own intrinsic values. The good cardinal tried to compare unlike objects and wound up doing nothing but creating a muddle that has been with us since. And since we are on the subject, the semi-official “church” should sever once and for all any ties to ANY political party. It accomplishes nothing and greatly intereferes with promoting moral values.

Posted by Stilbelieve on Monday, Jul 14, 2014 4:44 PM (EDT):

mrscracker - I tried to answer the “flavor” imagery with my personal experience story in the first paragraph of my comment. The “Seamless Garment” promoters want to spend all of their time talking about what comes after “the but” as exemplified by the first comment to Mark’s article referring to a “pyramid” just like the pro-abortion legislators were trained to do when people like me asked why they couldn’t support the last piece of pro-life legislation. They would always say, “I’m personally opposed to abortion, but… ” and the conversation then continued on the backside of whatever the “but” was. Catholic Democrats, thanks to the “Seamless garment,” were now able to say to us, “My pro-life doesn’t stop after birth” and they would rattle off all these other social justice issues that had no bearing on abortion or required a Constitutional Amendment to bring about.

One day it occurred to me to stop arguing with those pro-abortion legislator about their “but” excuses that wouldn’t allow him to vote my way, I decided to go with what they gave me, and what they gave me is they “are personally opposed to abortion.” I started staying on my side of what they gave me and asked them “Why are you personally opposed to abortion?” They never had an answer for that because they were never taught one by their handlers back in D.C. Cardinal Bernardin came up with a way that Catholics who wanted to remain Democrats could. He probably did so because of hearing from so many big time Catholic Democrats on how the Church was hurting them with their anti-abortion, and pro Constitutional RTL Amendment. Remember the archdiocese he was in charge of. He was afraid to stand up for the pro-life position of the Catholic Church which would then, as now, require Catholics to choose between their professed beliefs and their political identity. Catholics are the only reason abortion remains the law of the land. They are the only people who really should be against it, and therefore the Democratic Party, which is the only organization standing in the way of a Constitutional RTL. Catholic Democrats whole identity is wrapped up in the moral superiority they feel as Democrats their false belief of “caring for the little guy.” I used to be one of them, I know what keeps them Democrats. I picked my faith over my political prejudices. I picked being a Catholic over being a Democrat when the Democratic Party went all in for abortion. Bernardin didn’t want to take a lead in bring Catholics around to leaving the Democratic Party because he prided himself in making compromises and thought he could build a bridge between non-Democrat Catholics and Catholic Democrats. He failed, that is why abortion is still legal, and why now same-sex “marriage” is legal in 17 states, and our Constitutional First Amendment Right to Freedom of Religion is under attack, and why the Democrat President and the Democratic Party are attack the Catholic Church in the U.S. on the issue of birth control and health insurance.

Posted by Mark Shea on Monday, Jul 14, 2014 4:36 PM (EDT):

Stuart:

It is true that we are responsible for how our voting choices affect more than the question of abortion. It is not necessarily true that merely voting for somebody who supports a grave intrinsic evil is mortal sin. That goes, by the way, even for those who vote for a candidate who supports abortion, according to Cardinal Ratzinger. The entire point of his 2004 letter is that if somebody votes for a pro-abort candidate, not to support abortion, but for some other proportional reason, it is remote material cooperation with evil, but an attempt to achieve some proportionally greater good, and is therefore morally permissible. The trick, of course, is how we do that calculus, but it can be done. So if I vote for a fanatical pro-abortion candidate for water commissioner, because he is competent for the job of water commissioner, I am “supporting a proabortion candidate” but I am not voting to support abortion. Same for all the other issues you mention. Lots of Catholics who casually declare others guilty of mortal sin on the basis of who they voted for make clear that they have never bothered to read Ratzinger’s letter.

Posted by Stuart Kenny on Monday, Jul 14, 2014 4:04 PM (EDT):

“I am saying that you need to think and pray very carefully about your vote, because a vote for a candidate who promotes actions or behaviors that are intrinsically evil and gravely sinful makes you morally complicit and places the eternal salvation of your own soul in serious jeopardy.”

Voting for a candidate who promotes drone strikes in the context of a unjust war is a mortal sin.

Voting for a candidate who supports the death penalty when there are other ways to protect society from the criminal is a mortal sin.

Voting for a candidate who wants to keep low wages therefore forcing pregnant women to endure the stress of multiple jobs and miscarry is a mortal sin.

Voting for a candidate who wants guns to be available to those who kill pregnant women in shooting sprees or jealous boyfriends who shoot their girlfriends is a mortal sin.

Voting for a candidate who opposes free health care for pregnant women, the lack of which causes her to miscarry, is a mortal sin.

Voting for a candidate who refuses to acknowledge the reality of global warming, therefore condemning unborn children to death from extreme weather—heat, famine, storms, etc.—is a mortal sin.

Voting for a candidate who refuses to grant a path to citizenship for undocumented workers thus causing stress on homeless pregnant women causing them to miscarry is a mortal sin.

Our unwillingness to see our role in an unjust economic system which breaks apart families and causes women to miscarry and consider abortion as an option is a mortal sin.

Posted by mrscracker on Monday, Jul 14, 2014 3:18 PM (EDT):

Stilbelieve,
I’m perplexed how you got that “flavor” from this article? I’m about as old school Catholic as one might get & I thought it was great.
Catholic teaching is all one cloth, but that doesn’t mean that some tears in the material can’t be more serious than others. If you’ve ever worked with fabric you’ll know how that operates.

Posted by mrscracker on Monday, Jul 14, 2014 3:07 PM (EDT):

I saw this news item & need to research the facts further, but it would appear to rip another hole in that seamless garment:

Sweden’s Aggressive Attack on Conscience Challenged Before the Council of Europe

“Midwife Asked to Perform Abortions or Lose Her Job, Or Receive Re-education on ‘Rights’
...Ellinor Grimmark who was not only fired from her position as a midwife for asking not to have to perform abortions because of her belief that human life begins from conception, but who was offered her position back under the condition that she agree to psychological counseling to coerce her into accepting abortion as a “right.” “

It is really sad that you have this so wrong: “2) preventing the tendency of their opponents to isolate the gravest moral issues and use them as excuses for ignoring—sometimes with open contempt—nearly all the rest of the Church’s social teaching (as though opposition to abortion takes away the sins of the world).” First off, let me remind you of what St. John Paul II, then Pope John Paul II told the youth of the world in 1993: “Woe to you if you do not succeed in defending Life.” Fighting abortion will not remove the sins of the world. Only Jesus can do that (if you ask – you have to ask).

Secondly, let me assure you that faithful Catholics do not ignore those issues. We are dedicating our time, talent and treasure to ministries that help the poor. The point you seem to miss is that there is room for reasonable disagreement on how our government should be involved in handling the non-intrinsically evil issues that ail our society. However, there is no room for disagreement on the intrinsically evil issues. Therefore, we must focus our efforts in eliminating those issues. “There are no “truly grave moral” or “proportionate” reasons, singularly or combined, that could outweigh the millions of innocent human lives that are directly killed by legal abortion each year.” Bishop Farrell & Bishop Vann, 2008

If you vote for evil, you will be judged accordingly. But don’t take my word for it. In 2012 Bishop Paprocki stated, “I am saying that you need to think and pray very carefully about your vote, because a vote for a candidate who promotes actions or behaviors that are intrinsically evil and gravely sinful makes you morally complicit and places the eternal salvation of your own soul in serious jeopardy.” Jesus makes it clear that in the end, there will be sheep and goats – and He will separate them. Until we have two political parties that agree to (1) stop attacking public worship, (2) stop funding and promoting the use of contraception, (3) stop allowing abortion including those caused by certain contraceptives, (4) stop undermining marriage and the family by reversing the no fault divorce laws and legalized sodomite unions, (5) stop abstinent plus sex education, (6) stop attacking religious freedom and freedom of conscience, (7) stop funding and allowing pornography, (8) stop funding and allowing embryonic stem cell research, (9) stop funding and allowing IVF, and (10) stop stealing from our great grandchildren by printing money and redistributing wealth through non-emergency entitlement programs. Once we have two parties that agree to stop all these intrinsically evil acts, then we can focus on how our government handles the non-intrinsically evil issues.

In summary, faithful Catholics do understand the entirety of His Church’s social teaching and do participate accordingly through our time, talent and treasure. Most of us do not agree with how our government tries to replace God and His works of mercy. Your judgment of us is way off base.

Again, faithful Catholics are not ignoring the lesser, non-intrinsically evil issues. These issues simply lack importance at this time in history. You have heard the saying, “you must pick your battles?” Well, this is certainly a spiritual battle. We have (and are) losing many souls to moral relativism and the contraceptive mentality. According to Our Lady of Fatima, “More souls go to hell because of sins of the flesh than for any other reason.” Stop worrying about the faithful Catholics and start trying to convert the café catholics.

Posted by Stilbelieve on Monday, Jul 14, 2014 3:01 PM (EDT):

When I saw the NCR’s list of articles and read the title of yours, I was intrigued and thought this is going to be interesting. I clicked on it and, instead of reading it, I decided to check the two comments already posted to get a flavor of what you might have written. The “flavor” I got was not unlike what the Democrat pro-abortion Congressmen severed-up to handle questions from pro-life people like me when “pro-life” meant “anti-abortion and support for a Constitutional Right-to-Life Amendment.” The pro-abort candidates’ answer (always Democrats, the same party I was in) was - “I’m personally opposed to abortion, but….” The “conversation always, and I mean ALWAYS, continued on with whatever was said after the “but.” Thus the first comment posted on your article: “Yes, abortion, SSM, etc are tops on the pyramid, but other issues ARE A PART OF THE PYRAMID, not to be ignored or actively worked against.”

In 1998, I asked a pastor of a Catholic Church I attended (who I liked and who would give strong, thoughtful anti-abortion sermons occasionally) if he would support a friend of mine - Dan Lungren, a pro-life Catholic graduate of ND and Georgetown U law school, who defeated a 2 term pro-abortion Democrat incumbent in a Democrat majority district. Dan went on to serve 5 terms in Congress; two 4-year terms as Attorney General of CA, and was now the unopposed Republican candidate for Governor of CA. He was hit hard in every election by the pro-abortion lobby and candidates and especially running for AG and now Governor, but he never backed down. I’ll never forget the pastor’s answer to my question. He looked at me with a strange expression and said, “I can’t do that - I’m a Democrat - he’s a Republican.” Stunned, I asked, “What about abortion?” He said, “I’m not worried about the babies; they’re in Heaven.” This priest was also a leader in the Priest Senate in the Diocese of Orange, in OC, CA - a conservative county at that time. I decided to check the Registrar of Voters registration records using the current OC Diocese Directory to learn how other priests were registered to vote. I found half of the priests were not even registered to vote, and of those who were, the majority, 42%, endorsed with their name the pro-abortion Democratic Party. Thus - the fruit of the “seamless garment” in a conservative diocese, some 14 years after its inception, and 25 years after all anti-abortion laws were struck down in Roe v. Wade. It is now approaching 42 years and 57,000,000 murdered babies that the Democratic Party is solely responsible for - and it is those Catholics who are sooooo concerned with the “pyramid” who are responsible for giving the Democrat Party the electoral power to keep the murder of unborn babies continuing - unabated . Your commenter’s “pyramid” is upside down, Mark. All that is valuable in a pyramid is in the foundation, not the top. The foundation is stacked with INTRINSIC EVIL, everything above the foundation is prudential judgment which is not sinful, and no one will go to hell for their decisions. However, Catholics, including the clergy at every level, are risking their salvation by endorsing with their name and support the pro-abortion, pro-same sex “marriage,” anti- First Amendment Right to Freedom of Religion, anti-Catholic Church Democratic Party. And Catholics who are doing that are doing so because of the “Seamless Garment,” which Cardinal Bernardin thought up to “keep pro-life movement from falling completely under the control of the right wing conservatives who were becoming its dominant sponsors” and because he did not want to have to fight with his clergy and flock in the archdioceses of Chicago to get them to leave the pro-abortion Democratic Party. All is revealed in a subtle, smug way in just a few a few sentences tucked away in his friend of 30 years biography – “Cardinal Bernardin” Easing conflicts – and battling for the soul of American Catholicism” published in 1989, seven years before Bernardin’s passing. Cardinal Bernardin never refuted any of it.

On occasions, his mother, Maria, “advised her son, ‘try not to look so pleased with yourself.’” I don’t think if he were alive today he would look or feel very “pleased” with himself for what he has “weaved.”

I will read your article today and see if my taste buds were wrong.

Posted by Donald Link on Monday, Jul 14, 2014 3:00 PM (EDT):

Steven: It would appear that your own words misstate my comments. Nowhere do I seek a wider application of capital actions in appropriate circumstances. A point of historical fact is that application of morally acceptable captial actions at various points in the past in self defense would have prevented more egregious evil from taking place. The advocates of many today of taking no action or less than necessary action, are responsible for Rwanda, Sreberneca, South Sudan and assorted lesser crimes commited by those who have committed murderous acts in repetition when the opportunity to neutrailize these miscreants was justibiably present.

Posted by Stuart Kenny on Monday, Jul 14, 2014 2:21 PM (EDT):

Conservatives want to give the State as little control as possible. I believe that God has given the vocation to motherhood solely to women in a way similar to the fact that only men can be priests. Thus, I believe that decisions about the unborn need to be left solely to the mother. That is what God has called her to do. Women need to be able to fulfill their vocations without interference from the State.

What might be slanderously maligned and willfully misinterpreted (both mortal sins) as a “pro-choice” vote, can be, in fact, a vote to protect a woman’s ability to freely administer her God-given vocation. In a similar way, we keep the State out of the priest’s confession booth so he may fulfill his vocation. Both a woman’s womb and the confession booth should be off-limits to State interference.

Posted by Steven on Monday, Jul 14, 2014 2:09 PM (EDT):

Donald,

To be charitable, I would not impute evil intent but I might justly question whether you actually read the article before commenting or just saw the magic words “seamless garment” and automatically reacted.

I get the sense from your comment that you are looking at Church teaching through the lens of “When do I get to kill people?” rather than the pro-life lens of “When is it regrettably, as a last resort, necessary to kill?”

Posted by Donald Link on Monday, Jul 14, 2014 12:44 PM (EDT):

The “seamless garment” is, of course if taken literally, simple a modern heresy. It ignores millenia of Jewish and authentic Christian teaching of innocence, just punishment, self defense, defense of neighbor, just war etc. Many of our clergy of the past 60 years, aided and abetted by distortion of the actual teachings of VaticanII, have been infected with the virus of political correctness to the detriment of authentic theology. To be charitable, I would not impute evil intent but I might justly question whether they were fully awake during classes in theology and Thomasan logic in seminary.

Posted by Mark Shea on Monday, Jul 14, 2014 12:15 PM (EDT):

And unborn children are not the only kind of innocent human beings there are. And making sure people are born does not exhaust our duty of charity to them. And being born is not the goal, but merely the beginning of human life that is intended for nothing less that participation in the divine nature and full human flourishing. And even sinful humans—especially sinful humans—are the ones Christ died for.

Posted by Stuart Kenny on Monday, Jul 14, 2014 12:06 PM (EDT):

Unborn children die in drone attacks.
Unborn children die when their mothers don’t have access to prenatal care.
Unborn children die when mothers face the stress of holding down multiple jobs while pregnant.
Unborn children die in hurricanes and typhoons brought on by climate change.
Unborn children die when their mothers are shot by abusive boyfriends who have access to guns.
Unborn children die when their mothers are undocumented and afraid to seek help for fear of being deported.

People who are truly pro-life want to protect ALL unborn children from ALL threats to their lives.

Posted by mrscracker on Monday, Jul 14, 2014 9:46 AM (EDT):

Thank you, well done.
I had a conversation with a family member recently about this.I think deep down we know human life is sacred, but we invent language & rationalizations that dull the sharp edges that would prick our conscience when we take a human life.The more recent one I’ve seen is “fertilized egg” to describe a human being soon after conception.Likewise, “vegetative state” for the comatose or those with locked-in syndrome,etc.I’ve seen the term “surrogate mother” engineered to “gestational carrier” to better suit business & reduce legal standing for the mom.
Whenever there’s a change in verbage, something’s going on in society that we should pay attention to.

Posted by Bill on Monday, Jul 14, 2014 8:56 AM (EDT):

Excellent as always. We’re both/and as opposed to either/or.

Yes, abortion, SSM, etc are tops on the pyramid, but other issues ARE A PART OF THE PYRAMID, not to be ignored or actively worked against.

Join the Discussion

We encourage a lively and honest discussion of our content. We ask that charity guide your words.
By submitting this form, you are agreeing to our discussion guidelines.
Comments are published at our discretion. We won’t publish comments that lack charity, are off topic, or are more than 400 words.
Thank you for keeping this forum thoughtful and respectful.

Comments are no longer being accepted on this article.

About Mark Shea

Mark P. Shea is a popular Catholic writer and speaker. The author of numerous books, his most recent work is The Work of Mercy (Servant) and The Heart of Catholic Prayer (Our Sunday Visitor). Mark contributes numerous articles to many magazines, including his popular column “Connecting the Dots” for the National Catholic Register. Mark is known nationally for his one minute “Words of Encouragement” on Catholic radio. He also maintains the Catholic and Enjoying It blog. He lives in Washington state with his wife, Janet, and their four sons.